Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 12

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)
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)
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)
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: Okay, folks, your mentors are still busy getting up to speed on everything, but I've read every single comment that's gone across this talk page since I first posted on it, and I have a few observations:
* Cries of "censorship" are generally unproductive.  Your mentors are going to commit to making sure that everything is fairly represented in this article.  No government agencies are going to descend here and bowdlerize the article for public consumption.  We'll all get the chance to discuss each point that anyone feels needs to be included and weigh it against Wikipedia's standards to decide if it belongs or not, and if so, how to word it.
* Personal attacks are counterproductive.  Please define "personal attacks" as broadly as possible, meaning please stay as far away as you can from wording that could even be remotely construed as a personal attack.  At best, personal attacks add nothing to your point (and they do not add an point to your argument if it did not have one on its own without the attack).  At worst, they inflame people, making it more difficult for them to respond constructively, they generate more personal attacks, and the whole situation deteriorates.  Simply state your point.  If you're hot when you're commenting, consider emailing your comment to a mentor and asking them to translate it, C-3PO style, into a polite statement of your views and posting it on your behalf.
* Wikipedia does not exist to determine truth.  It is not our purpose to decide if NLP's claims are true or not.  It is instead our purpose to fairly represent both NLP's claims and the claims of its critics.  The purpose of consensus within Wikipedia is not to determine truth, but to determine the wording of articles.  Nobody needs to modify their personal views in order to achieve consensus on the wording of the article.  However, anyone who is not committed to Wikipedia's core principles is likely to be more concerned with hammering their viewpoint than they are with agreeing upon wording which fairly represents all side.
* Lots of people appeal to their own personal beliefs as to what the standard for the article should be.  Very few people are appealing to Wikipedia policies.  The previous point is one example of this.  Some folks (on the 'pedia in general, not specifically this article) have the idea that Wikipedia is in fact here to determine truth.  Citing actual passages from actual Wikipedia policies helps eliminate this, and helps keep us focused on the task of writing an encyclopedia.
* Focusing on each other's personal thoughts and motivations is unproductive.  Focus on the text of the article, and how you believe it needs to be improved.  More on that, later.
* This article is protected and is going to stay protected until your mentors agree to change that.  Any changes you want in the article during that time period are going to have to get by us.  It is my hope that we will guide you through the process of first convincing us, using Wikipedia standards, what the wording of specific parts of the article should be, and then eventually peacefully convincing each other.  The magic of Wikipedia's policies is that even people who disagree completely about the subject of an article can, in fact, agree on its wording.
Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentor comments (from Jdavidb) 

message: Just wanted to say that all of our email links work and that includes Ral, who hasn't chimed in yet. So if you have any concerns or questions that you want to address to us privately, do so. Also, we're going to have a next to zero tolerance policy on uncivility and personal attacks. Argue the issues, not the people. As jdavidb perfectly said, we're here to make an NPOV article, not to "determine the truth". --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding a couple of things from Woohookitty

message: I've been busy with other issues, but I am monitoring this talk page as well as my e-mail, and will chime in when necessary.  Ral315 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick note from Ral315 

message: Note: we'll finish filling out this section after the 24 hour protection period.  Thanks, Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 01:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've mentioned on the mentors talk pages, though it hasn't been signed here, Headlydown originally did accept the mediation.⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 17:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediators 

message: All -- the page has been archived in its entirety, save a few comments from mentors intended to guide our discussions from here on out.  This is so we can start fresh, with a clean slate.  I know this will probably not be popular with some of you, and we're sympathetic to those concerns.  So we want to reassure everyone that your views will be heard and considered.  This isn't an attempt to censor anyone's viewpoints, but rather to clear the air a bit.
Additionally, you all should know that as of this posting, we will be enforcing Wikipedia's policies on no personal attacks and civility on this and related pages.  If a comment falls afoul of these rules, we will refactor it so that it's not offensive.  Please try to focus on content, rather than making personal comments, either directed at someone in particular or at a side of the dispute in general.  This isn't rocket science -- just be polite.  You don't have to agree with one another, and you don't even particularly have to respect one another.  But you must be cordial. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just chiming in so everyone knows Katefan0 wasn't acting unilaterally.  I think we all agreed this was the thing to do. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to say that I agreed to this as well. And no we are not trying to censor anyone. Just need to clear the air and start fresh. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As do I.  Sometimes it's best during heated discussion to take a 24-hour break, and reflect on things.  Ral315 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Katefan0. --Dejakitty 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that some of my comments are not in the archives...strange...meh.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible some comments may have gotten lost in the cleanup; you can add them to the archives if that's the case. But in any case, they're all in the page history. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what happened... sorry.  I thought I'd copied all the way down, but hadn't. Everything should be in there now. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived -- and going forward 

message: All,
We have opened a workshop page which you are free to edit; it's at Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop.  Here are the ground rules:
* No reverts. 
* If there is a section of the text that you have problems with, move it to the workshop's talk page where you will be expected to discuss it and come to a consensus. Text moves may not be reverted. 
* Non-trivial changes must be discussed on the talk page.
* No incivility.  Anything that's rude will be refactored or removed.
* Mind the arbcom's directions on sourcing and attribution of views.
* Any changes that receive a consensus and follow WP's policies can be incorporated into the main page.
* Those who can't follow the rules will earn a block.  
A related note:  We are watching related pages and will be enforcing the arbcom's probation on those pages -- including Principles of NLP, Tony Robbins, Engram and any other related pages.  · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workshop 

message: Hi all.  A very important claim that NLP promonents make is that NLP is universally acceptable simply because it is all form and no content (Dilts et al 1980).  
I think this needs explaining especially from a scientific point of view.  I can have a stab at it now though.  Generalizablilty is a key word often used in scientific papers that measure the efficacy of various methods.  Also, the term "limitations" is a very important concept.  These seem largely to be absent from NLP texts, and indeed, the NLP push is generally towards "unlimited potential" and universal application or general use.  I believe the terms, "panacea", "universally applicable" and "unequivocal" could be used in both the opening and the main body of the NLP article.  Camridge 09:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Universal applicability claim needs explaining

message: When the page is unprotected, could the citation in the first line, Lilienfeld et al 2003;Raso 1994, be footnoted? — Asbestos | <FONT COLOR="#808080">Talk </FONT> <FONT COLOR="#808080">(RFC)</FONT> 14:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already agreed to footnote the citations...that can therefore be done while protected, as nothing is being deleted/added.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 01:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: I've unprotected this because there has been no discussion on the talk page in well over a week. --Tony Sidaway 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop instead. Of course this could've been pointed out if you'd left a polite talk page message to one of us four. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I didn't realise the mentors were holding this on that tight a leash.  Wow, must be some serious problems here! --Tony Sidaway 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep there is. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Understatement of the year award, Tony...and it's only March! ;-)  Akulkis 22:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: forgive me for not reading the umpteen archived talk pages, but is it really accurate to state that NLP is pseudoscience?  i was under the impression that NLP methods were subjected to  hypothesis testing, and that the researchers found that the NLP methods work.  also, even if this is disputed, isn't it POV to describe NLP as pseudoscientific right there in the first sentence of the article?  not trying to rouse rabble; just trying to increase knowledge. Streamless 14:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the result of a recent arbitration committee case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming. Work is ongoing at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop, which is mentioned at the top of this page. You're both more than welcome to come participate -- much work is needed on disputed text that isn't terribly NPOV. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i don't know much, but i think there should be a distinction between the application of certain elements of NLP (e.g. using certain phrases, gestures and expressions in conversations in an attempt to make others feel relaxed or happy) and the "sale" of NLP as part of the self-improvement industry.  Streamless 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was under the impression that NLP doesn't claim confirmed scientific status, but acknowledges that it's a work in progress; wouldn't using the term protoscience be more accurate while still conveying that it's "kind-of" science? Eringj 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello 82.41.96.242 and 213.106.102.178.  There is a view that NLP is pseudoscience.  There are many reliable and corroborating sources to back this up.  Which is why it is mentioned and explained in the article.  HeadleyDown 11:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello again 213.106.102.178.  I believe more could be included on NLP seduction.  So I added the BJ pattern to the more specific patterns line.  Regards HeadleyDown 07:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscientific 

message: Hello mentors. Could somebody put a tag or two on this article that accurately reflects the ongoing dispute. Something like {Template:POV} ? I don't think a majority of readers will bother wading through the various sub-levels of talk pages and articles to find out why it's been locked from editing. I realise it's an out-of-process request, but then again, it's fairly out-of-process to lock an article for this long. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 09:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey-doke. Ashibaka tock 01:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please tag appropriately 

message: As far as history goes, it might be worth noting that inner child pop psychology guru John Bradshaw was a NLP practitioner and promoter prior to his "dysfunctional family" movement heyday. Mr Christopher 17:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Bradshaw

message: Please note that Johntex has been made a mentor for Neuro-linguistic programming, per the arbitration ruling, to join the current four. Hopefully this will help things run better. Dmcdevit·t 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much - I hope I can help out.  Best, Johntex\talk 01:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: I fully and completely trust the admins who are mentoring this page to use good judgment and to keep a very close eye on the page and work with all the editors (especially those who were the subject of the arbcom ruling) to generate a peaceful and harmonious editing process.  I would like to suggest, as gently as possible of course, and with full consideration for the difficult task you have accepted, that protecting the page is something that should be done sparingly and only for very specific reasons.
One of the things that we want to produce as an outcome of this is, hopefully, friendships among the previously warring parties, and a sense among them that they should behave in a trustworthy manner because, in part, we have shown that we trust them.  Page protection doesn't move things forward in that arena.  Of course, if page protection is necessary, then it is necessary.
As I say, I trust your judgment, and I only came to give a small bit of hopefully helpful thoughts on the matter.--Jimbo Wales 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings Jimbo.  Protecting the page is a hard measure.  There are many things I would like to change, especially regarding the improvement and representation of the sociological views on NLP.  However, protecting the page has definitely led to a far more peaceful communication between editors, largely due to it preventing the desperate censorship of the article.  I believe it to be a wise move. We are getting the hang of civility, and the NLP advocates have been reducing their repeat requests for removing scientific views, and for removing the "incriminating" statements of NLP authors and promoters.  "Friendship" is indeed closer than before.  The block history is very one sided, but I realise thats only because the NLP advocates are always on the verge of leaving and the mentors are reluctant to scare the NLPadvocates away altogether.  Whatever, I also trust the mentors to move this forward, and I appreciate your encouragement.  It will all help us in the months and years to come. ATB. Camridge 08:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the months and years to come? How long do you intend locking this page? It seems to me, as someone just visiting the topic, that someone isn't picking up on the hints from senior wikipedians to get the finger out. The locking process itself is close to vandalism, as I see it, in this case. --82.41.96.242 17:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Can I suggest to the mentors a brief, prominent paragraph at the top of the talk page, explaining why the page is protected, how the mentoring works, and directing people to the workshop page?  At the moment it's not obvious to people not familiar with this dispute (such as me) what is going on here.  Enchanter 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a prominent paragraph at the top. I added a bit to it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Enchanter 08:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice (not an order!) from Jimbo 

message: As Ral315 and Jdavidb have both recently resigned, Will Beback has been appointed as a new mentor, to bring the total back up to the original 4. Dmcdevit·t 05:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentorship changes 

message: #In the Questionable Applications paragraph controvercy should be controversy.
#Some words in headings (such as Applications above) have a capital initial without any apparent reason.
#The list of developers in the See also section IMO would look better if the asterisks and the footnote were replaced with an entry such as:
:*John Grinder and Richard Bandler, (considered to be the) co-creators/co-originators of NLP. --Army1987 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing minor changes 

message: It's a shame that a page with so evident a POV problem is protected. This article is more about why NLP is not a real science than about what it is. It's like if the astrology article was an endless discussion about why horoscopes are untrustworthy, with two hundred and sixty-one footnoted references, without explaining how they are made. I suggest this is rewritten using :Wikipedia:Summary style, so a separate article criticisms of NLP can treat this issue in depth, while the main article deals with what NLP is, rather than what it is not. I have some limited knowledge about what NLP claims (i.e., that using certain body postures you can force your brain to work in certain ways, or something like that), because I once read about it on a magazine. If I didn't, from this article I would have very hardly understood at all what NLP is/claims to be.--Army1987 18:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Army1987; your participation is welcome. Active participation should go to:  Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Workshop where editing is progressing on a dummy page while people work out their differences in wording. See you there. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that page, and, well... I think that, being almost totally ignorant about NLP, I shouldn't even dare to post on a page where there are endless arguments about the wording of every single sentence... I'm afraid I can't help...--Army1987 10:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd appreciate anything you can give, Army1987. The mentors aren't exactly "experts" ourselves. Anything that can make the article clearer is more than welcome. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost an attack page, needs to be seriously reworked 

message: DaveRight has been proven to use sockpuppets. Specifically, he created and used the accounts of JPLogan and Medius Maximus. All 3 accounts have been blocked indefinitely. Please. Do NOT use sockpuppets. It is not going to help you. If anyone here is using sockpuppets right now, I would suggest ceasing. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 02:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do NOT use sockpuppets 

message: Hi all.  I added a rather well discussed section from the workshop and I have not removed anything else but the first small line.  I understand other parts will need discussion for removal.  Anyway, I wanted to supply the article with something quite neutral that the workshop managed to provide.  Please feel free to state anything you like about how to make the article more verifiable and more neutral. All input is welcome, and please be nice to the mentors. ATB.  Camridge 05:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good start. I'm for your edit and we work from there.--82.41.96.242 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I think some of that original opening needs to stay.  We could probably get rid of "the practice mostly attracted...." para, but there is some very useful science based fact in the last para of the opening.  Some of it can be toned down though, or can be an enlarged version of the criticism line (second para) including the science facts.  Its mostly a case of making the wording more readable and neutral. And using active voice (critics state that..... scientists state that.....) etc.  Bookmain 06:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course there are objections Comaze.  But the passage also includes some very clear wording, which I am sure is what we would all like to encourage. Certainly, there were some good lessons included in the new passage that we learned from the mentors during the workshop that will be beneficial to the current article.  I am sure nobody is saying anything here is carved into stone.  This is Wikipedia.  Using this kind of example, it will be constructive to move forward with this kind of clarity in mind.  I am sure the "neutrality is disputed" label will be here for a while.  But lets stay constructive.  ATB.  Camridge 09:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it ok to make the changes outlined in thia workshop post? I'll attempt to merge your version with the objections outlined here ---=-C-=- 09:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well camridge, thank you for discussing the change and ignoring any contrary opinion. Greg 16:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  An interesting objective view --82.41.96.242 23:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to opening

message: Are we to discuss here or at the workshop? Anyway, I want to import all the updates that were made to the Workshop dummy page into the article. Any objections? The reference formats are especially important. ---=-C-=- 07:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any objections to moving the body of the workshop article into the main article? ---=-C-=- 09:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Give it a day or so, so others can chime in. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References and import from workshop dummy page

message: This paper (in French) is used as a reference in the article to support the statement "NLP is sometimes referred to in scientific research reviews as a cult".  However, I can't see anything in the paper that even mentions cults.  Unless I'm missing something, it looks like this reference has been given in error. Enchanter 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the referencing in this article needs cleaning up -- there are too many references entirely, and some of them are being used as sourcing for points that the text doesn't really back up. I would encourage users to go through the referencing in this article carefully. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References need to be gotten under 100. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Enchanter.  Winkin says NLP is like a religion.  We have a good deal more new info on NLP as a new alternative religion, and that is so large it will probably require a new section.  As far as cults go, NLP is widely considered to be a "secte" in France.  Secte is translated as; a cult with a deliberate intention to harm.  ATB. Camridge 02:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Woohookitty.  Keeping refs below 100 is a good idea.  ATB Camridge 05:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've now removed the reference to this paper in the context of cults. Enchanter 19:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find any occurrence of the word "secte" in this text. If someone can point us to the specific language, this can be perhaps reinstated; otherwise I support its removal as a reference for that specific point. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 19:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Winkin is not appropriate in the cult section (apart from to explain why it is a cult).  There are more official French docs to place NLP as a secte.  Regards HeadleyDown 02:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parlez-vous Français? 

message: I've removed this dead link from the article; does anyone have a link or reference to whatever this was meant to point to? Enchanter 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead link

message: According to the article, "NLP book titles include ... “Get Anyone to Do Anything”".  There is a popular book of this title, by David J Lieberman, but it does not appear to have anything to do with NLP - indeed, it is full of references to mainstream psychology journals.  Unless there is another book by the same name relating to NLP, this would appear to be here in error.  Enchanter 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Enchanter, you are correct.  The Science and Tech book is "Nlp: Neuro Linguistic Programming the New Art and Science of Getting What You Want by Harry Alder" Constant deletes have screwed up a lot of lines.  ATB Camridge 02:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main thing we're going to eliminate is cases where there are literally 3-4 citations for once sentence. I have a feeling that all came about during the period of the most fighting over this article, i.e. alot of "I have a source!" "I do too!". Just overkill. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 03:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really it was something that was requested by those wishing to remove facts.  There seem to be a lot of academics here who are happy to provide sources.  When somebody wanted to remove a fact, it was often demanded on the basis that there were only one or two or three sources to back it up.  So editors helpfully searched and provided more.  We were'nt competing for how many we could stuff in there. It would be nice to be properly appreciated one day for the hard work applied to saving the more obvious facts from being deleted. ATB Camridge 03:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the reason was, Camridge, we should not have more than 1 or possibly 2 citations for a sentence. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Camridge, you've been really helpful with today's problem solving and sorting.  JP just sent me some new stuff about who thinks NLP is dubious.  I know Woohookitty doesn't want it all in the article, but it includes other facts that will be useful.  I'll send them over.  AliceDeGrey 04:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys - rather than cut 3 sources down to 1, and then find out that that one was a misquote and have to go back and find the other 2 - can we have an "invisible reference", something hidden in a paragraph. I'm sure I've seen a way of making remarks, and it might allow for a nicely readable article, with some backup too you can see during editing. Your thoughts? Greg 13:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A maximum of 3 would really be nice at least. The footnotes allow for us to get away with a bit more, but 4+ so frequently is a bit on the messy side.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 07:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure nobody has a problem with providing references.  And misquotes are not a problem either (never have been).  One problem I forsee is the use of numbers instead of names to a reference.  The current page (and the workshop) have had the names turned to numbers and  you often get a set of 5 numbers on the same quote and they all go to the same ref.  That is unacceptable.  I cannot say what the intention was, but the conversion has led to a great many references deleted, including page numbers that people took time looking up over the months.  It looks to me like a perfect opportunity for some "editors" to screw around with the arrangement and remove refs while backs are turned focusing on facts. HeadleyDown 07:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get anyone to do anything! 

message: This article currently has a tremendous number of references.  References are a good thing.  I applaud all the editors who have worked on this article for finding references to back up facts included here.  However, there really is such a thing as too much of a good thing.  Therefore, beginning this week-end, I will be removing some references that seem unessesary to me.  Some of these may need some discussion - I will post again here as I actually begin the work.  Thanks, Johntex\talk 00:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Johntex, during the workshop I removed all unused references and converted to the standard inline as recommended for feature candidate articles. See the source of "Notes and References" section on the workshop dummy page, the reference list is automatically generated based on what is used in the article, with links back and forth. Is there some way we can merge the changes to "notes and references" format? It shows how many times each reference is used with backlinks to the text sections which is useful for establishing the relative weight given to each reference and POV. Some editors will object because some controversial text (for example, multiple false associations to Dianetics) was moved into the Workshop discussion, and we were unable to reach consensus to import it back in. Can you think of a middle way, where we can maintain the "notes and references" while attempting to reolve the aoutstanding issues. ---=-C-=- 00:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The logical way would be to attribute all sources according to the helpful recommendations of the mentors, and once that is done, then refs can change format or be removed if they are not used.  There is a section on Beyerstein that you may want to comment on before it is placed into the article. Camridge 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This diff may assist with checking the references  Note the way I converted <ref name="drenth"/> and how the reference list with back links is automatically generated with <references />. Only the first occurrance of a references needs to have the full citation details, for example: <ref name="drenth">{{cite journal
 | author=Drenth, J.D.
 | title=Growing anti-intellectualism in Europe; a menace to science
 | journal=ALLEA Annual Report | year=2003 | volume=- | pages=- | url=http://www.allea.org/pdf/17.pdf
}}</ref> ---=-C-=- 09:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I began converting the references. I'll finish it over the weekend which will assist us check the sources and the facts. ---=-C-=- 02:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HI Comaze - thanks for starting this work.  It is a bit tedious, but it should be beneficial. The  style of making the references also has a big advantage in that the reference is self contained in the text.  This helps prevent orphaned references because it makes it easier to add/delete the reference while one is adding/deleting the article text.  When references are in a different section, it is easy to delete a sentence from the article and forget to go down to the seperate section to delete the referense.  It turns out that I need to go help out a friend today in the non-wiki world, but I'll come back as soon as I can. Johntex\talk 18:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, some handy Wikipedian's created a cite tool -- take a look at the thread on the Pump. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 06:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem Johntex, any outside assistance would be appreciated. Unfortunately the cite conversion tool that Katefan suggested did not work for this article. I've gone ahead and converted most the citations manually. The backlinks (a,b,c,d,e) will help us establish the number of times a source is used and hence, the relative weight assigned to the various views. This should make fact and references checks possible and eventually, a peer-review. There are a small number of citations still to be converted. ---=-C-=- 02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing un-needed, unused, and duplicate references

message: This is quite a good reference I think, but underutilized. Its language is clear and yet I feel that the article as it stands doesn't capitalize on its plain language to explain the critiques of NLP. Rather, we have choppy things about "therapeutic wizards" that snark but don't quite capture the nature of the criticisms. Anyway, I don't have time to digest it all or make more suggestions besides this one tonight, as I'm off to Baltimore to catch a show.  FWIW, just an observation. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Oblio and Kate.  I'll have a closer look for Sharpley's and the other's more accessible language.  Regards HeadleyDown 01:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Figleaf and welcome.  THanks for the verification.  Its very helpful.  ATB, Camridge 04:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hiya Katafan.  Drenth seems to be spot on.  And you're right about his language, its nice and easy on the eye (though strangely foreign also).  He mentions the engram (engramme) and other rich fantasy concepts.  Well this is useful, and can be even better explained with reference to the other associated new age ideas.  Human potential uses this throughout.  I suppose if you are gonna be fair, one would mention that other therapies like Dianetics, primal scream, emotional freedom technique and others use this same concept.  Chaining engrams is a common misuse of the engram term.  NLP's core ideas utilize the engram concept in relation to its main contribution (how to manipulate internal imagery and perception).  The original books have tried to avoid sounding theoretical, and though they do propose hypotheses, they shun theory (some say to avoid testing) and try to stick to practice (appealing to the lay reader rather than the scientist).  So they're not going to mention engrams when they describe the way your submodalities can be used to make changes in the brain. But thats the concept they are using (the erroneous human potential version of the engram) The pseudoscience bit comes in where NLP proponents claim that your internal senses (or submodalities of those senses) will change the circuits (engrams) of the brain.  Of course neuroscientists have never come close to determining how or if this occurs, and the evidence points to far more complex situation and, well basically points to the other direction (its not imagery doing the neuro changing).  I notice Beyerstein also explains this kind of thing and mentions engrams and scientology (amongst others) also.  So in agreement with other human potential therapies, engrams are the main theoretical concept behind NLP, and I imagine just about every NLP book will show this.  Drenth, Beyerstein, and Levelt are making this clear and I see those other NLP refs and links are making explicit use of the engram term also.  I'll see if I can get those sentences to fit more clearly into the article.  LemonMnM 03:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks LemonMnM.  I have some literature on New Age/Human pot that can be helpful here also. ATB Camridge 04:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: I've just blocked three four sockpuppets coming from the same IP ranges in Hong Kong and removed their long-winded comments.  Listen, whoever you are -- pick one account and use it, that's just fine.  But if you keep using sockpuppets, they're going to keep getting blocked. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. We have a free hand and the ability to get IPs checked through users that have CheckUser rights. So it's kind of pointless to try to use socks. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so! There's absolutely no need for it.  Regards Headleydown@yahoo.com HeadleyDown 00:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socks thrown in the wash 

message: Any many changes made need to discussed here first. A succession of smaller changes constitutes a major change. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Woohookitty.  Do many attribution corrections or line corrections consitute a major change?  ATB Camridge 04:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would at least post what you are going to be doing on here first in case someone objects. I wouldn't assume anything with this group. :) --Woohookitty(meow) 04:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! I appreciate the wry perspective.  I wonder if you include the mentors and mediators as part of the group!:)  Headley and I are working towards correcting any lines, and attributing them properly. We've just been sent a ton of new research, so we may be replacing some attributions with something more clear or more solidly verifiable.  I'm sure agreement will come in time, but I believe the most effective way to get the article into shape (without constant arguments) is to work with properly attributed facts (as promised after arbitration), then clarifications. Then making openings and overviews representitive.  I'm sure nobody believes the current article is a final or stable version. ATB.  Camridge 06:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before making changes can you please check it for NPOV. I have not checked all of the recent edits, but there was some POV edits in the mix. A recent change labelled as "correct view" seems to introduce POV language eg. "now it is rarely even"  "Even" should be avoided in this case. Also the rest of the change needs to be check - it appears to be incomprehensible to the average reader, and to not conform to the rules of grammar. ---=-C-=- 13:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a reminder 

message: (notice: This refers to the 2nd Paragraph as it's on the workshop page right now)
current: 
:NLP is based on New Age principles [3] such as body language cues derived from the observation of “therapeutic wizards” [4]. Some techniques include behavior change, transforming beliefs, and treatment of traumas through techniques such as reframing [5] [4] and the "meta-modeling" [6] proposed for exploring the personal limits of belief as expressed in language.
alternative - formulations could probably be improved, I am not a native english speaker:
:NLP is based on the observation of the well-recognised psychotherapists Milton Erickson (hypnotherapy), Fritz Perls (Gestalt therapy) and Virigina Satir (family therapy). Grinder and Bandler constructed models of the behaviour of these therapists, and NLP claims that any successful person's methods can be modeled and then replicated.
:Critics claim the principles and techniques derived from these observations, such as body language cues, "reframing" and "meta-modeling" are pseudoscientific and link them to the "New Age" movement and Dianetics.
Something like that contains all the content that you seem to insist on, while the formulation is neutral without supporting either POV.
--213.191.86.35 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your alternative paragraph seems fine - but I'm not sure that it is a replacement for the previous one. We have a large problem (with no solution that I know of) of repeating certain things throughout the article, and I'm sure this stuff has been posted in other places... so the challenge is how to make this whole thing flow better. I also question adding any Dianetics reference it's simply not a part of NLP - though somebody apparently thinks it is so it'll be represented somewhere. Greg 13:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Change to 2nd Paragraph 

message: After reading most of the workshop page and some of this, I think this justifies its own discussion:
How much of the various ways NLP is taught/marketed by various people should be included in the main NLP article?
The Firewalk is one example. It's mentioned here extensively as an example and yet after reading a dozen books on NLP and visiting a week-long seminar, this is the first time ever that I encounter it in the context. Likewise, I am surprised at the mentioning of "casting magic circles, sending energy out to the audience" and like comments. Nothing even remotely like that was part of the seminar I attended, nor could I possibly imagine it there.
Also, a huge amount of crap is marketed as NLP, even though it's got little or nothing in common with it. That's not surprising, that's marketing. If quantum physics were suddenly the hottest thing on earth, you'd bet shampoo would be sold as "especially well quantum-entangled", and yet we wouldn't be discussing changes to the quantum physics article, would we?
SS, TLT and all the other blabla should be listed with links to their own pages somewhere at the bottom under "related topics" and that's it.
Also, one should be careful with Bandler. Lots of what he says today is plainly refused by most of the NLP community. Many NLP people I've met shrug when you mention Bandler and tell you they think that nowadays he's only in it for the money and his seminars are a rip-off. That doesn't sound like your typical cult to me.
So, in essence, I plead for seperating between what NLP claims to contain and what other things claim about NLP. Just because the pseudo-science cult I'll invent this evening claims it's the merger of christianity, pure logic and the theory of relativity doesn't change what any of these are about.
</endrant>
--213.191.86.35 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely Greg 14:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have thought myself for some time that it might be best to start with what the people who created NLP said about it or intended it to mean, and then a separate section for the different ways discrete practitioners have interpreted their publications. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NLP Variants 

message: I checked the german (I'm a native german) article on this subject and it appears to be quite excellent. It is neutral, fairly extensive and provides lots of references for most of its claims. Most importantly, it manages to seperate support and criticism into their own sections, with links to both other wikipedia articles and external sources.
I strongly suggest a reading, even if you have to go through bablefish or google translations:
german NLP article
--213.191.86.35 14:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately other Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The German article is well written, well structured and encyclopedic, and I too encourage people to read it with a view to using ideas in it to improve the English language version.  It's a fundamental part of Wikipedia's philosophy that the different language versions form part of "one encyclopedia" rather than a set of separate projects, so cross fertilisation of ideas and materials between the language versions is to be encouraged.  We should be paying attention to other language versions, as they are a valuable resource of encyclopedic content, and any contradictions between language versions should ideally be addressed. Enchanter 19:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if the german article can't be used as a source itself, certainly the sources that it references can? --80.171.62.22 21:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, although ideally we should look for English language sources rather than foreign language sources where possible, as these are more accessible for fact-checking.  Indeed, there have been a few cases recently of foreign language sources having been misinterpreted or misquoted in this article. Enchanter 00:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes accuracy is important, and checking will be helpful.  But its also important not to dismiss the non-Angloamerican views.  For example, we have just recieved lot of new references from India and China, and though they may be a little tough for some people to check, they do represent a significant view.  ATB. Camridge 04:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but we need to be careful with non English sources. It's because that with any language, there is no "perfect" translation, so we might end up with disagreement over what the article actually says. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good example is my translation of Levelt in the [[NLP Workshop, it is still not clear what is actually said. It seems that Levelt is using satire to demonstrate how something can sound scientific (engramme), but have no basis in science. Levelt's satire seems to have been lost in the translation, hence Drenth's factual error in connecting this to NLP. Let's not make the same mistakes. If it is a widely held view, a more reputable/reliable source will be available from the hundreds of journal articles indexed by medline/psychinfo. ---=-C-=- 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Comaze, they corroborate, and Hollander writes about engrams, as does Derks and Sinclair and Derks and Goldblatt. The weblinks presented also show this.  Anyone who has read some Dianetics will know tha NLP is based on the engram concept.  HeadleyDown 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You failed to address the questions raised. Hollander does not represent all of NLP - this is a minority view. I'm not going to argue with you in circles. If you are unable to present some solid evidence, I'll remove all of these references. I'll wait 24 hours. ---=-C-=- 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Language Articles 

message: On the main page I made a series of alterations to paragraphs and changes that had been put up WITHOUT DISCUSSION. I did this in preference to reverting them entirely, which doesn't encourage developing the article. 
Camridge just reverted all of those. See here  for the differences. I've listed all the alterations I made, below in summary form - if anyone disagrees with my alterations, then lets REMOVE THE CHANGES ENTIRELY, and discuss.  Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing change

message: *As a healing movement, NLP is involved with other "power therapies" ....
This paragraph was added without discussion. Rather than remove outright, I altered it to say some consider it a healing movement, some consider it a power therapy.Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is accurate and has multiple correct citations to support it. HeadleyDown 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I have not read of anyone saying NLP should be promoted as a power therapy.  Of course power is used a lot in NLP ads.  Please clarify your objection in more detail.  Camridge 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove power therapies

message: *Presuppositional beliefs
Somebody wants to call "NLP presuppositions" "presuppositional beliefs". 
While all NLP trainers will refer to presuppositions, I don't know who says "presuppositional beliefs" (anyone know?). I've reverted it to the common usage - but does someone think we need to elaborate on an alternative viewpoint? Greg 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is simple.  Presupposition is not understandable.  Presuppositional belief is far more understandable.  You have chosen to use the less understandable version.  Readers will benefit from the more clear version (presuppositional belief).  HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please address my concern - belief is inaccurate. I agree it's easier to understand, but "belief" is misleading (though some practitioners DO believe the presuppositions). All practitioners use the presupposition concept. You may like your version but lets find one that's accurate (my current concern) AND readable (both our concerns). Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hall and Bodenhammer (user manual for the brain) Presuppositional belief.  There are many other, including the web.  They are being helpful and accurate.  There is no valid argument against placing presup belief.  In fact you could simply place "belief".  HeadleyDown 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are agreeing with what I've said, without addressing the question. Some practitioners believe the presups. Some don't. Of course there are some groups calling it "presuppositional belief" - as it is true for some.  "Presupposition" (without the word belief) is true for all, not just some groups.  I'm only discussing this with you to attempt to find a better way of representing that, if you don't want to talk about that then please stop repeating the bit we've agreed on and leave discussion to other interested parties. Greg 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There should be a preference for using standard terminology, i.e. "Presupposition", and then explain what it means.  Explaining NLP terminology is relevant to the article, and I don't think the nonstandard "presuppositional beliefs" helps much in this case. Enchanter 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a very bad idea to obscure the article with jargon. A presupposition is a belief.  It is more accurate to describe them as presuppositional beliefs. Even in NLP literature, they are described as beliefs.  It is certainly more helpful to the reader as presuppositional beliefs.  I have added a citation also.  HeadleyDown 02:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not agree to mislead people because you don't understand presupposition. Let's reopen the presupposition description from months ago. Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no made up version.  Editors refer to direct quotes.  Please explain in detail why you do not want beliefs in the phrase.  Camridge 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: presuppositional beliefs

message: *According to Menon (1997 p27) the 3 main senses used in NLP have a mystical origin and correspond with the vedic occult elements of air/fire (most people), water and earth (VAK).
Highly dubious!! And added without discussion. I left it in but added "the 3 main senses (seeing, hearing, and feeling)...". It's simply a stupid quote though.. "our senses of seeing, hearing, and feeling have a mystical origin"... Bah. Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is perfectly verifiable.  Narrowing the views to that of a single style is unacceptable.  HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please address my concern. Why is this quote of any important to the page? - I think this quote is stupid and very loosely related to NLP.  "NLP's seeing, hearing and feeling correspond to occult elements"? Who cares if it's verifiable... Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may think it stupid, but the verifiable source clearly does not.  The more independent sources state that NLP uses magical theories.  Menon is explaining this.  Dismissing south Asian views is againt wikipedia policy. HeadleyDown 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it's a useful link, can you please say why someone saying that "we have an imagination" corresponds to the occult, is useful or clarifying towards NLP. Greg 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GregA.   I have an occult handbok and it shows that the 5/3 representational systems are from early magic systems.  I can send the info to Headley. HansAntel 04:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have not come to a consensus on your change, so I've reverted it for now but we can discuss of course. It makes no sense to me in this context. Who cares if imagining something is something vedic cults did? Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Enchanter.  Many of the scientific papers call NLP's theories magical.  That is because they are derived from early occult insights about the senses, balancing the senses, synethesia and so on.  There is more to add to this, and it will be clarifying.  Regards HeadleyDown 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some links to spiritual stuff worth having. Keep it to the right place and represent it for what it is. Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rep systems and magic

message: *Hemispheric differences (brain lateralization) is used to support assumptions in NLP.
Who is it used by? I modified this to clarify - ie some NLP trainers use this. It's not universal and NLP doesn't do theory itself. Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This will be properly attributed.  We have just received more info on this.  HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please address my concern. Who uses hemispheric differences to support assumptions? I said "some trainers use" as that is my understanding. I don't care about attribution that it is used, just clarification of who uses it that way - you've given attribution before. Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this is getting silly.  I will attribute the theory to the author. HeadleyDown 00:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can't understand the question. Of course the author may have said "(some theory) is used to support X". I am asking who (according to the author) uses that theory. This is not about the attribution. This is about what he's claiming. And if he doesn't say WHO uses it, that's useful to know too. Greg 01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting on who uses brain laterisation to support NLP assumptions. You said you just received more info? I've added "Some trainers" until we can be clear which trainers or practitioners. Attempting to be clear here. Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brain--- Left right

message: *NLP does not stand up to scientific scrutiny (Von Bergen et al 1997 page 291).
I added "Critics say NLP does not ...". I made similar attributions in the rest of this section. Similar to what I requested comments on earlier (for the scientific analysis section) . Greg
::This has been altered to standard. HeadleyDown 16:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Agreed. Greg 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP fails under science scrutiny

message: *Beyerstein states that NLP is a pseudoscientific fringe therapy (Beyerstein 1990 page31), and explains that bogus therapies can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment (1997p20) , and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures." In Brianscams, Beyerstein states that when the New Age brain manipulators such as NLP are challenged, critics typically encounter anecdotes and user testimonials where there ought to be rigorous pre-and post treatment comparisons (Beyerstein 1990 page33).
Another non-consensus addition. I grouped what Beyerstein classed NLP as together. And clearly showed when he was talking about "bogus therapies" or "New Age brain manipulators". Greg 08:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its all clear now. HeadleyDown 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hehehehe. Headley, discussion involves discussing. Weasel phrases such as "when the New Age brain manipulators such as NLP are challenged..." are still weasel phrases. Clearly saying something like: "Beyerstein says NLP is a New Age brain manipulator" removes the weasel. Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello GregA.  Its Beyerstein's view.  Its perfectly valid and has been presented using proper citation style.  HeadleyDown 04:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prof Beyerstein's views on NLP

message: *Swish replacement
I've simply put in what was discussed in the workshop, Katefan's version. Reverted Alice's change too... hell it was the only thing we actually made an accepted change to wasn't it? Greg 10:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your version was unclear and vague, and could be used to explain any type of visualization.  The NLP version with body language and VAK characteristics is far better and unique to NLP. HeadleyDown 04:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put words in my mouth. This is the compromise Katefan came up with. I preferred a different description, as did you - but this was the closest compromise to go through. Do you remember? Greg 12:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, fight this one out with Katefan. Greg 13:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There will be no fighting.  Katafan helpfully moved us forward when there was no progress in discussion.  The line was clarified after Woohookitty's helpful advice in the workshop on how to write more clearly and concretely.  This has probably been the most helpful aspect of the workshop.  Concrete and clear writing will be presented throughout as that helps the reader to understand what is going on in seminars, books and trainings.  Camridge 04:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever, I don't care about you dropping Katefan's work. That's your choice. Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Swish activities

message: Some more questions to discuss:
*Despite the lack of empirical evidence, NLP adherents continue to believe in its efficacy for personal and spiritual growth, and as such, NLP has been called a New Alternative Religion and an alternative version of Scientology (Hunt 2003 page 195), though its religiosity is more implied and less organized than Scientology.
This is in the new age section. It's a weasle phrase too. In my former change I suggested
*NLP adherents believe in NLP's efficacy for personal growth, and often for spiritual growth (in whatever way the individual defines "spiritual"). Some say NLP implies religiousity, and some call it a "New Alternative Religion" - Hunt (2003 page 195) says NLP is an alternative version of Scientology, though he says it is less organised.
Are there objections to this change? If so what specifically? Greg 11:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP and human potential

message: Regarding the foundational assumptions
#Anyone know who says "Distinct from its formal presuppositions, NLP incorporates a variety of foundational assumptions that precede the presuppositions."'. Is this our opinion?
#These seem to belong near Presuppositions, any ideas on how we could move these near each other?
The assumptions seem pretty correct - I'm not sure if they're all foundational though some are. The link between physiology, cognitions, and emotions is key to NLP and is included roughly in the first point (mind-body connection). Actually - the 2 presuppositions actually shown, I would classify as assumptions of NLP (as distinct from a large amount of other presuppositions which aren't assumptions). Greg 11:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP presup beliefs again

message: * NLP assumes that all human behaviour is neurological, and all human behaviour is based on the 5 senses, rather than attitudes, reason, emotions, mind, morals or ego .
Does Singer say "rather than...?". NLP doesn't actually say that, but if Singer said that we can put both in.  (ie: NLP does say all behaviour involves cognitions, and all cognitions are reprsented in the 5 senses - but that does not discount the rest. For instance emotion is sensed through the body (which is the "kinaesthetic" of the 5 senses), and involves internal-dialogue, and often something imagined. Greg 11:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No this was placed in the article as an explanation, and it is another author's statement.  I believe Eisner stated this.  I will find the appropriate page number.  The explanation is important as it shows how limited NLP theory is.  Most psychological theories take into account a lot more than basic sensual channels and engrams.  Attidutes, emotion and so on are far more complex than kinesthetics.  But of course, the 5 senses of NLP are only a follow on from occult theory.  The structure of magic really is just occult theory, and thats why NLP has become so attractive to occult practitioners.  Regards HeadleyDown 04:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prof Singer on NLP

message: * Circle of Excellence: Standing in an imaginary magic circle, filling it with symbols and archetypes of choice, in order to banish negativity and enhance positive thinking for use in any NLP situation (Ready 2004p250; Hall 2001p95).
This is a new one since my original reversion of undiscussed. It was also added without discussion.
Ready (2004) is not in the references. Besides that I don't even know if he's supposed to be an NLP source - if he is he's not well known. Circle of Excellence is not taught as "symbols and archetypes", nor "banish negativity". This POV belongs in the cult section. Greg 03:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ready is a source you have quoted yourself:  NLP for Dummies, by Ready.  Bookmain 03:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello GregA.  Really there is nothing we can do about NLP being new age.  It simply has to be accepted as the view of the more independent sources, and if it looks new age on the article there is also nothing we can do about it.  NLP uses ritual throughout seminars, books, videos, and that is how it is going to look on the article.  There is so much of the stuff in the literature it is unavoidable.  We have to learn to live with it.  Camridge 04:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP circles

message: You do have one point about attribution - unrelated to the reversion war but I can't think of anything else and you won't address any of my points.
So to my comment on theory - which you've tried to attribute to someone. Well, it wasn't that kind of comment. (Note that this is separate to the reversions - it exists in both versions). 
*"an NLP practitioner may, after observing a person's behaviours, develop a theory of what a person is doing."
Although it's been left in the article out of context - this is not a quote from anyone. NLP modeling and NLP processes all involve observing what a person is doing until you think you know (consciously or unconsciously) what they are doing, and then testing that, and then modeling/observing some more. I personally find that parallels testing a "theory" - but it's a theory which comes from observation (in contrast to a theory telling you what you are about to observe). My line puts both NLP's statement and the critics response into some perspective.
I'm certainly happy to lose the line (that's not involved in the reversions at all) in order to keep the reversions, and then discuss the line separately. 
If you tell me what you protest, we can fix it. Greg 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What needs fixing is unconstructive editing.  You are being given time to fix things, and your reversions are not giving anyone time to clarify the article.  Please be more constructive.  Camridge 04:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am being given time to fix things? You revert everything I change, and ignore everything I discuss. Well done. Greg 13:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: haha. Wow, you're so very generous to allow me so much time, while deleting anything I do. Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes GregA, we should give each other the benefit.  Regards HeadleyDown 15:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theory

message: The whole thing is just too vague, muddy and abstract.  Too many obscurantisms.  Unless the reader has already joined the cult of NLP, they will be completely lost. Again, there is too much redundancy.  Meta, rep systems, and milton etc are already explained in depth in the article. They are completely redundant in the list. Camridge 10:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have misunderstood me here so I've moved my original question down to a new subheadline. Is there a way that the descriptions or definitions of these various patterns or processes could be written so they are less "vague, muddy or abstract" way. Abstract definitions are probably required for this section. We can go into more depth with typical uses with concrete examples of the common applications. Criticism of the applications, supportive/unsupportive evidence for efficacy, and underlying theory can also be explained in a separate section, please comment below on this matter. ---=-C-=- 13:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there are criticisms for many of the patterns and also the presuppositional beliefs. I believe we will add them later though.  In the meantime, we have to work on presenting the article in very clear and concrete terms.  Camridge 04:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for your feedback. I assume that you are partly answering my question below about how we can represent the criticism of common patterns. I'll find concrete examples for the use of each pattern, and concrete examples of criticism for the common application. Do you have any suggestions the definitions of the various patterns and processes used in NLP? These definitions need to be abstract enough to include the majority of significant views, while concrete examples of the use and criticism of these patterns can be included under an applications section. If you start using examples from the start we'll run the risk of pushing a particular POV. There are plenty of case studies and books written on the use of the common NLP patterns in various areas. ---=-C-=- 05:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: How should we represent the criticism for these common patterns? ---=-C-=- 10:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should summarize the common applications and include a summary of the various case studies, and experimental research for each application. Would this be acceptable? ---=-C-=- 04:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to present criticism of common patterns

message: Everyone seems to hate each other here. I'm a Psych student at uni (through a science degree). I study linguistics too (normal linguistics, as a component of an arts degree) I worked for someone who actually used NLP in his line of work (i'd tell you his name and what not but i think thats a little mean... I do some work as an audio engineer in my spare time and he wanted to make spoken CD's)... He explained the process of anchoring much the same as classical conditioning -which seems to me pretty smack bang correct, but hey i'm a kiddy when it comes to this stuff-, he suggested 5 of the sense things, his additions were that the vistibula (sp? its too freaking late here) which in terms of neurology is responsible for balance and what not (i didn't understand the connection) and auditory/digital which is what he said bandler, robbins etc. all are...
He also picked on various other things in written language and those seemed, well... Prevalent in every piece of marketing material i've ever seen... :) Not that its necessarily a problem but weird nonetheless. Obviously its all about selling yourself though, regardless of the business. He used the eye cues or whatever, but i'm pretty much convinced those are absolutely garbage myself.
Anyway, back to the point... I can't imagine how something like this can actually be scientifically tested because the skill of the "therapist" seriously has to come into play... But i dare say thats the same with psychologists also. At uni my psych lecturers can't even agree about what psychology studies (hell some don't even agree that there's a mind..)... Which sounds an awful lot like NLP at this point in time.
But hey i'm happy to sit back, let people believe what they want, and i can go on doing the same. Surely thats what keeps people happy... But hey i'm most definately not a neutral viewpoint here. I think it would be pertinant perhaps to create a page saying what fanboys/girls say it is and link all objections to a page saying what haters/critics say it isn't! (eye cues, meta models etc. All sound like they belong here). Maybe clear segmentations of the article after a main page with very VERY minimal information, would be a good way to let people choose what they wish to read.
Love you all, Cheers! 211.30.130.183 13:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our goal is to have one article that accurately discusses the major points of view on the subject, without declaring that one view is right or wrong. Johntex\talk 02:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 211.30 and welcome.  Your views are interesting.  We do have some views that state anchoring is not like classical conditioning though.  Also the reviews of NLP were all conducted by professionals.   Which is why they have been accepted into peer-reviewed journals.  I appreciate your input. ATB Camridge 02:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wow

message: All reverts need to be discussed here just like all edits need to be discussed here. If this behavior continues, the page will be protected again. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Woohookitty.  It is settling down a bit now.  I believe we actually have something controversial to discuss lower down also.  That should stop all the unwarrented fact deletions for a while. Bookmain 10:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be civil please. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've stricken Bookmain's passive-aggressive comments. Please don't do this. It's no more civil than the feces-flinging everyone was engaging in before. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 12:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I can see how it may be construed as mudslinging.  I was trying to be constructive.  I'll do my best to refrain (from appearing like a mudslinger). I hope you notice the constructive actions and comments I have made also. Bookmain 07:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a difference between not appearing like a mudslinger, and not mudslinging? :) Greg 08:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've done all I can to list every single reversion to the past fortnight's additions by Camridge & Headley. A couple have been answered. I assume from that, that this answers your request to discuss all reverts, at least from my side? If not please guide how you want this done differently to what I've done. :) Thanks. Greg 13:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop the reverts 

message: Moved. i dont know how to properly edit wikis obviously, (im not even logged in). Anyways, Why are people arguing about what gets removed from the article? Why cant both opinions be stated and credited as a 'belif' or 'ideal' or whatever it happens to be. Obviously, if there is a good ammount of people arguing two sides of the same thing, i think it is important to place both opinions on the page. im sure if you look on the year 2000 page you'll find information about the end of the world... unfortunatly that never occored but the belif was important enough to be noted. im not saying anything is BS ether, im just trying to point out, theres no reason to remove things unless you can proove its wrong... and then in that case i'd say that the user is activly vandalizing the page if he continues to add information that is proovable to be wrong
:Welcome to the page. I agree totally with you. So will "the other side". There are some bad things in NLP and some good things, on this page I'm becoming polarised as any positive finding or application is automatically removed by the other side. 
:Please join the page, you've already contributed some good stuff. Create yourself an account so we know it's you posting too, it makes it easier. If you want to ask questions on how to login or get some "special effect" for editing feel free to email me on galexand@ozemail.com.au, and to be neutral with that offer you'll find Headley's email address in the discussion above (headleydown@yahoo.com) if you'd like to email either of us.  Greg 02:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (headley, please delete my last line if you wish, I just wouldn't want my offer misunderstood) Greg 02:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and yes your opinion is perfectly valid.  There are more than two views though.  Some people believe it can do amazing stuff (especially promoters), others don't trust it at all.  Then scientists say it doesn't work according to controlled studies etc.  I believe they are all represented. As far as incorrect statements go, yes, sometimes people make erroneous representations/changes of scientist's/sociologist's views, and they are corrected by other editors.  This is all just part of the validation/correction process.  A lot of direct quotes have been placed into the article to stop some editors putting their own "spin" on things. Its an easy way to resolve conflicts. Regards HeadleyDown 02:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: bah, spin. Just choosing which person you quote is spin. And your description of "believers, non-believers, and scientists" is a spin too... the experiments show both sides too. Anyway some peole say that if you say something loud enough for long enough people will believe you. :). Lets stick to discussion of points, perhaps. Greg 02:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Not Both Views ? 

message: I want remove the follow text because it is mostly plagiarised (copy and paste job from another web site); it has incorrect citations and fails to enclose the text with quotation marks. 
;Text plagiarised: copy and pasted from web site . Borrowed work must be enclosed with quotation marks.
:#"NLP participants are taught that the human mind can be programmed"
:#"NLP embraces this Null Hypothesis and the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks "
:#"While the more traditional therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons "why", Neurolinguistic programming looks at the "hows" to provide a short cut to a solution."
:#"Like Scientology, rebirthing and other alternative therapies"
;Text moved (red quotes added to mark plagiarised text)
::""NLP participants are taught that the human mind can be programmed" (plagiarised from Edwards see #1, quotes added), and "like Scientology, rebirthing and other alternative therapies"(plagiarised #4, quotes added, false references to raso/lilienfeld)  "NLP embraces this Null Hypothesis and the classic New Age concept of 'clearing' these blocks" (plagiarised #2, quotes added, note incorrect references) ." "While the more traditional therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons 'why', Neurolinguistic programming looks at the 'hows' to provide a quick fix to a solution"  (plagarised #3, quotes added, 1 possibly correct reference to Edwards, fake references to singer96/sharpley/sala99/singer99)"
---=-C-=- 13:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quotation marks are an easy issue to deal with.  Text moves are completely unnecessary.  The whole article requires this, and it is ongoing.  I suggest a more constructive activity will be to focus on the more recent suggestions for addition instead. HeadleyDown 14:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we know what is plagiarised, and what text is properly paraphrased and attributed to the original author(s)? This is a significant issue with the current article. We need to remove all plagiarism from the article as soon as possible. I have found other examples copy and pasted directly from other web sites. ---=-C-=- 00:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats an interesting suggestion Comaze.  Surely adding two inverted commas is just as easy as pressing the delete button? Please add any such punctuation to the article to the copy and pastes. I will do the same. Regards HeadleyDown 02:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Large chunks of text in the current article have been plagiarised. We must paraphrase and attribute this text to the correct source, or remove it entirely. Not only does raise copyright issues, it goes against the very core of GPL on which wikipedia is based. If you are aware of any other text that has been copy and pasted from copyright works, please make the necessary adjustments. ---=-C-=- 03:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored some of the overview that was not lifted was the site named. Please be careful to use quotes and proper attributions. ---=-C-=- 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That quote and author is not acceptable for the overview. If it was to be included in an appropriate section (possibly a section on New Age, or sceptics POV of NLP) the authors' biases would need to be characterized. Secondly, this book is self-published and does pass minimum scholarly or wikipedia standards for inclusion. ---=-C-=- 09:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're partly correct here. "A Skeptic's Guide to the New Age" is not self-published. You may be able to characterize his view as scientific scepticism, along with Robert Carroll (skeptics dictionary), Beyerstein, Levelt and Drenth. None of these authors provide any new research, it is just opinion and commentary. They did not review NLP the supportive and unsupportive psychological or experimental literature available on NLP. We need to be careful not the present their view as if they were correct. Please do not confuse research with sceptics opinion. ---=-C-=- 10:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I have a far better idea for what to place in the overview. Forget about Edwards even though he is clear and accurate, I'll get back to you soon. Regards  HeadleyDown 10:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long it is based on the literature published in peer-reviewed journals then that would be fine with me. ---=-C-=- 10:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd be flexible.  Good definitive books and journals will be preferred. There are some reputable websites though and it would be a shame to waste a potentially clarifying resource (though as usual they'd need plenty of vetting and cross checking). HeadleyDown 11:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem, let's get in contact with the editors who inserted this text in the first place. I removed 3 blocks of text  which had been plagiarised, the text was not properly enclosed in quotes, and traced the origin of how this text got inserted into the document, I'll contact the individual editors involved and attempt to explain the difference between paraphrasing, and quoting.   ---=-C-=- 13:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, your worry of suing for copyright breaking is valid.  Scientology have sued Internet companies for the same rationale.  They do it to stop companies writing about their scientology pseudoscience frauds, according to those critics.  But it is constructive to use quotation, just by adding "   ".  Undiscussed deleting of large text about eg NLP pseudoscience just for having no quotation marks very unconstructive. They just need quotation marks.  I hope you understand how it looks.  HansAntel 03:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  text move  - Overview 

message: I've updated some of the WikiProject articles. I'd appreciate some assistance with this project. Please pop by the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods, and join the project if you wish to participate. ---=-C-=- 11:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Comaze. My pleasure.  HeadleyDown 12:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like assistance with criticism and references for Bateson's double bind theory. It forms the foundation for many of NLP therpeutic interventions. ---=-C-=- 12:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Comaze.  Thats easy.  Critics say its untestable pseudoscience and junk science.  Its also devoid of empathy (according to critics).  Just like most of the human potential development (according to researchers). It basically implies that if you are schizophrenic or delusional, it is your choice and your fault for being too simplistic. It ignores basic neurological conditions such as a lack of nicotinamide receptors in the neurons, or physical brain damage.  Its part of Scientology's argument against the use of drugs for suffering patients, aging brains and the use of psychoactive analgesics for the treatment of dying cancer sufferers.  HeadleyDown 13:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello GregA.  No that would be misrepresentative.  Placing direct quotes will be fine, with proper attribution.  Clinical psychologists are quite negative towards the pseudoscientific double bind theory, and generally wish to point out it's potentially harmful application as prescription.  This is all part of the general problem with ill-educated or simply fraudulent practitioners applying daft and dangerous methods.  There is plenty of literature on this, and I'm sure editors will oblige by presenting the broad selection of views. With science as a clarifyer, of course.  Bookmain 07:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how to reply to this :) I don't see how using actual references which clearly address it would be misrepresentative... and you suggest the same thing as I do in the next line (quotes, attribution). I did summarise your criticism since it had no reference and was vague - perhaps you meant I misrepresent your words? In which case I would have thought you would add something new - you add nothing in your reply.  You also pre-judge the double-bind concept by calling it "the pseudoscientifice double bind theory". Can you actually give some quotes or attribution etc? Greg 14:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NLP concepts and methods]] 

message: １==Overview==
Experts such as Hunt, Stephen J. (2003) A Sociological Introduction, London: Ashgate p.195 Kelly (1990 p.25) characterize NLP as a New Age development with implied religiosity in the healing/self-development field.  
Devilly (2005) considers NLP to be classed as an the alphabet or power therapy similar to Thought Field Therapy or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Emotional Freedom Technique and Traumatic Incident Reduction.  
Hunt (2003) states “While not an alternative religion per se”  NLP can be seen as “similar to new religions of eastern origin that trace themselves back through a progression of gurus, and to esoteric movements claiming the authority of authenticity through their descent from previous movements”  Hunt (2003) considers NLP to be “an alternative to Scientology”.  
This adds far clearer context to the overview.  Regards HeadleyDown 02:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Experts such as (link link)" isn't adequate. What kinds of experts? What expertise do they claim? Don't use weasel words, mention a discrete critic. Links are necessary to back up assertions but they don't substitute for readable text. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 02:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, just place their names, dates and page numbers. Simple solution!  Bookmain 03:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No bookmain. It's our role to help the reader to understand. Just giving a name doesn't help us show whether it's important in the slightest.Greg 04:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree GregA.  Simply present a line for who considers NLP to be New Age (it'd be too much to present their credentials as there are so many), and present the other (I guess "The sociologist Hunt") line showing all the relevant details.  Thats simpler and more clear for the reader. ATB Camridge 04:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting. Since NLP books don't classify NLP this way, it would be best to say what they say, and then the viewpoint from other fields. unfortunately I doubt these people speak for their entire field, though they may be genuinely part of those fields. All we do is list off a group of people's quotes. Very unreadable. Greg 09:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello GregA.  Actually, NLP books do sometimes classify NLP as new age, and the authors certainly use new age notions throughout, and make themselves very appealing to new age bookshops and advertise them there.  The lines presented give an independent view of the context of NLP.  Thats probably the best overview a reader could get considering the subject.  NLP authors try to sound as scientific or as space age as possible, while using out of date ideas. They present the narrowest view possible.  I'm sure more can be added though, especially something concrete to show the reader what goes on in NLP. ATB.  Camridge 10:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Bookmain.  Your lines are good and clear.  They are ready.  HansAntel 02:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Hans, its a big improvement on the present lines.  I'll put them into the article.  Bookmain 03:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded and clarified overview

message: Here's the short description of map/territory distinction to replace the other version that I had to remove. I've already inserted it. I was going to have more informatio about the neurological and linguistic transforms that occur after the sensory filters and before first access. Maybe you could offer some feedback to make it more readable. 
*The map is not the territory - The process by which we create of perceptions and repond to the word distort, generalise, delete portions of our experience. These filters occur even before we are first aware of them (for example, a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from 400 to 700 nm).
---=-C-=- 13:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze, your undiscussed changes to the map-territory part of the article are very unclear and unhelpful to the reader.  HeadleyDown 16:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check your sources:  map/territory in NLP was described in Structure 1 (1975), Patterns 1 & 2 (1976, 1977), Turtles (1986) and Whispering (2001). ---=-C-=- 23:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes exactly. Its very unclear.  It will require clarification.  HeadleyDown 12:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map/territory 

message: There is a more pressing matter however.  It is very clear that there is no concrete introduction for the reader.  The first line is fine, but then it goes into really abstract NLP jargon, then (necessary) theory, and then criticism in the opening.  As mentioned above, the opening sorely needs something such as:
NLP methods include the use of guided fantasy, visualizations, affirmations, ritual enactments, hypnosis, altered states of mind, and body language such as posture and eye movements.
This could go straight after the first line in the opening and will properly orientate the reader with a set of concrete activities that go on in NLP methods.  This can be expanded in the overview, and concrete terms can be added to the rather woolly jargon of NLP throughout.  Camridge 05:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That line is misleading, pure and simple. Rituals? Guided fantasy? If you can not represent NLP for what it is, and THEN show the scientific response - it's a weak article. You should be able to clearly criticise NLP without misrepresenting it, there are many fair criticisms. Greg 08:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Body language? That is not NLP. ---=-C-=- 09:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze. You state that body language is not NLP! Well what about what the literature actually says .  Camridge 09:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you provide does not support your claim. ---=-C-=- 10:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually, Comaze, Camridge's claim is supported.  The article supports the fact that NLP makes use of body language.  It is just another one of those undeniable facts.  Just a brief glance at the literature says NLP methods use body language. e.g. Principles of NLP Oconnor and McDermot page 10. They say that in NLP they use body language and voice tone.  In Sue Knight's NLP at Work she talks of the importance of body language.  Its all there in the literature.  And there's lots of it.  Regards HeadleyDown 11:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The typical way some people attempt to assign meaning to body languge is also criticised by especially Bandler and Grinder. For example, see p.53 of Frogs into Princes (1979). This is a more reputable/reliable source than the sources you/Camridge relied on. Jules is also criticising the typical use of the term body language in the source that Camridge supplied. Do these authors meet wikipedia's minimum standards for sources? ---=-C-=- 13:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: These are not scientific responses and they are certainly not critical.  They come from NLP texts.  NLP involves visualizations, guided fantasy, affirmations, ritual enactments, hypnosis, trance states, and body language.   NLP books are full of these activities.  It is a correct, accurate, clear, concrete sentence that helps the reader, and it is derived from NLP texts.  Camridge 09:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree these simple terms are going to be very helpful to the reader and they are most certainly undeniably in NLP texts.  I'll put them in.  If you want, we can also add citations here, but I see no reason to clutter the article up with them. Bookmain 09:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnecessary restructuring.  Use concrete terms from the literature for readability

message: * At various times various statements have been given in the article with the reference to "Alder H. (1994) The Right Brain Manager: How to Use the Power of Your Mind to Achieve Personal and Professional Success (Piatkus Books)"
:This book barely mentions NLP at all, and does not describe itself as a book about NLP.  Some ideas in it are clearly borrowed from NLP, but this is mixed in with other ideas and the author's own views.  I don't think this is a particularly relevant reference, and would suggest it is removed from the article. Enchanter 19:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Enchanter.  Alder is an NLP expert and his books have been quoted by scientists as an example of NLP literature. I know NLP lit is a bit obscure, but lets face it, its a pretty obscure fringe development anyway. Bookmain 01:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. Who says Alder is an NLP expert, if I may ask? Greg 13:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not Alder is an NLP expert is not really the issue with this particular source; the point is that the book does not itself claim to to be about NLP or mention NLP significantly.  So it is simply not a particularly relevant source for an article on NLP, whatever the background of the author.  I believe Adler has also authored books which do specifically cover NLP, such as "Learn NLP in 21 days". Enchanter 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are correct Enchanter.  Alder has other book more worthy of the quotes that are in article.  EG, NLP, art and science of getting what you want.  I'll check it.  HansAntel 02:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Observations on sourcing (continued) 

message: ;Let's create a section for the various sociology perspectives on NLP
Professor Stephen J Hunt, who writes about Christian perspectives on in sociology, characterizes [22] NLP as a development with implied religiosity in the healing/self-development field and states that NLP is “an alternative to Scientology". Hunt (2003 p195) states “While not an alternative religion per se” NLP can be seen as “similar to new religions of eastern origin that trace themselves back through a progression of gurus, and to esoteric movements claiming the authority of authenticity through their descent from previous movements"
Hunt is an example of the Christian sociological perspectives. We need to check the references including Hunt to see if they passes the minimum standards on wikipedia ---=-C-=- 10:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hunt is a research Dr. of sociology in the UK and a lecturer.  That's his title. He's well published. He and other similar independent peer-review published researchers of sociology, history, or anthropology are ideal for giving an overview of NLP. So lets keep him in the overview. Regards  HeadleyDown 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we talking about the same person? Stephen J Hunt  ? Given that if he has reviewed the literature on NLP, his worked has not been published in a reputable journal, so it really does not give him much weight. Certainly not enough to be included in the overview. Why not stick to source that have been well-cited in the peer-reviewed literature? ---=-C-=- 13:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Comaze.  According to his cv, Hunt has published over 100 journal papers and over 50 national and international conference papers on the subject of the Sociology of Religion in the area of New Religious Movements and in the area of Christianity.  His book is eminently quotable.  HeadleyDown 14:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello Comaze. I suggest Barrett be placed with Hunt within the overview.  Barrett is also a clarifying source.  There are others we can add also.  For example, Winkin also states that NLP is like a religion. Nobody states that NLP is a religion per se. But clearly there is a lot of religiosity and spirituality going on there.  Regards HeadleyDown 02:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh!  But there is other views that NLP is a religion (not organized one).  They are not sociologists.  So sociology section is wrong.  Just keep in overview.  It helps the reader.  HansAntel 03:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Comaze.  At least we can place the Barret line in the article.  Bookmain 05:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bookmain, the way you have quoted Barrett is misguided. The way you've inserted it pushes a particular POV. Please check that your posts for NPOV before posting. ---=-C-=- 00:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section (sociological perspectives) 

message: There is no need for every sentence to have umpteen citations within it. All it does is make the article a devil to edit and hideous to look at. I'm trying to consolidate them down but it is nightmarish trying without losing important links and maintaining WP:V so there will be a fair bit of to-ing and fro-ing. Just an FYI so people know what's going on. Jefffire 15:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help Jefffire. If you have deleted anything of importance, we can replace it using your consolidation approach. Regards HeadleyDown 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, well done Jefffire.  I'll have a go at attributing according to your style.  I quite like it and it looks to be correct.  ATB Camridge 04:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, its actually harder work than I though, and I was never much of a programer.  Still, I think its worthwhile persisting with.  ATB Camridge 06:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I found that out too after the first three edits. I think it was probably for the best I took a break. I'll be back later though. Jefffire 09:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jefffire, I hope this is acceptable. I tagged some lines that are disputed. May I suggest you do the same, while you're checking the references. I've found that the references are easier to read if the are separated onto different lines. I'll leave it to you. I just fixed up some messed up references. ---=-C-=- 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lord, I hadn't even considered that some of the references might be bad, I was just trying to cut them down and put them in the proper place. That's another thing needing done now! :( Jefffire 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think we need to do to prepare this article for another attempt at peer-review? I had a comment from an experiences wikipedian that this would bring in lots of advice from other editors. ---=-C-=- 00:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mess of citations. 

message: ;Text to replace entire section:
* Meta model (NLP): Questions and challenges designed to gather specific information. 
* Representational systems: In this model, human thinking can be reduced to ordered sequences of Visual, Auditory and Kinesthetic representations. Also, a person's choice of words, use of gestures, eye movements and other subtle changes reveal information about people organise their thinking 
* Milton model Artfully vague language that is considered to be the inverse of the meta model 
* Anchoring: Resourceful states from the past are recalled and a bridge is created for those resource to be available in future contexts 
* Perceptual positions: A situation is considered from different points of view or different descriptions are created of the same event. Typically a situation is considered from the perspective of self, other and a neutral observer  .
* Logical levels / logical types: Ordering information into different by type.  . 
* Visual / kinesthetic dissociation: A process to reduce the negative feeling associated to a memory </ref name=cancer>
* Rapport: Mirroring or matching somebody's verbal (for example, sensory predicates) and non-verbal behavior (gestures, movements, eye movements) in an attempt to gain their willing unconscious attention (Bandler et al 1977p.10)
* Submodalities: Deliberately changing the size, brightness, movement of internal images in an attempt to alter the impact of those images  
;Reason for change
This is just a clean-up. It remove alot of the POV about chakras, etc. And removes specific examples of patterns eg. Swish is an example of Submodalities change work, so I remove the swish. All items have been linked to their subpages. Also, removed circles of excellecne and replaced with anchoring which is gain, more general. ---=-C-=- 03:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  Your suggestions are unacceptable and go against NPOV policy.  Firstly you are narrowing the view by wanting to remove chakras.  You would be restricting the section to a particular narrow view of NLP.  You have also made the writing less concrete and more confusing to the reader.  It is unacceptable.  Restricting the view to a single sanitised version is wrong and against NPOV policy.  This anti-NPOV activity (restricting the viewpoints to Anglo-american or to sanitized NLP) is unconstructive.  I have some more Indian and occult views on NLP and they will be added.  They represent the broader view and will be a useful set of concrete terms to help the reader.  HeadleyDown 04:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HeadleyDown, You appear to be pushing a narror POV while claiming NPOV. I don't follow your argument. ---=-C-=- 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Removing views on chakras is narrowing the view.  It also removes a concrete explanation or example of the body/mind interaction in NLP. I wish to keep the views open and broad. HeadleyDown 04:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made the change so you can compare it, see the diffs. Notice that it removes POV, by making it more general. ---=-C-=- 04:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree entirely, Comaze.  I would prefer it if you gave us a chance to disagree on the talk page before imposing your undiscussed changes on the article. Now the section is in serious need of clarity.  You have removed a great deal of clarifying comments, and narrowed the views to the more vague.  Readers will not understand what it is about.  It will just have to be clarified in other ways. HeadleyDown 09:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change (common patterns/rituals)  

message: Hello Comaze.  You have been adding disputed tags without discussing. There are 26 of them on the article.  I believe in each case there is no grounds for a dispute because all of the facts are in the literature.  A reader will see the disputed tags, then go to the discussion and see that there is nothing to dispute - the facts are in the literature.  Also, most of these facts are not even being discussed  in the discussion.  So adding a disputed tag is wrong.  Please remove them all and start again by discussing the points that are being ignored, and by requesting for disputed tags to be placed only if there is a dispute that involves a line that is not written in the literature.  HeadleyDown 04:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tags are there so we can discuss them. These have been disputed many times and have not been resolved. The disputes are mostly around POV pushing. If you support the disputes lines, then feel free to move them to the discussion so that that we can move forward on this. These will need to be addressed before we can submit for another peer review. Also, we should be looking at removing alot of the poor quality sources and insigificant view that you seem to be supporting. ---=-C-=- 04:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you prefer that the disputed assertions be move here for discussion. I don't think that this will work based on its failure in the past. Do you think that this will work moving forward?  ---=-C-=- 04:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ahem. It is the job of the mentors to make the rules here. Just the fact that Comaze disputes the facts makes them disputed. I suggest that Comaze start with a few and say why he disputes them and we'll go from there. Imposing time limits isn't the way to go here. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure Woohookitty.  I believe that is reasonable.  Just the same, keeping so many dispute tags on the article all the time really does detract from the article. Regards HeadleyDown 09:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought of another way, deficiencies in the article that require dispute tags detract from the article much more. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 21:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I see it that way also, Kate.  I have no problem with disputes, and I know they can imporve an article.  However, there are disputed tags that really have no useful place in the article.  For example, the whole criticisms section in the opening has a disputed tag.  There are a great many direct quotes in the article that have disputed tags.  and eg. The Handbook of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies [69] and others classify NLP as a "dubious therapy". (disputed — see talk page).  It is clear that there is a view that NLP is dubious.  I see no reason to legitimately dispute this.  I would say that there is always a threat of abusing dubious tags when there are so many.  Regards HeadleyDown 01:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undiscussed disputed tags

message: Camridge writes: "Concerning magic, well, again NLP and Scientology are both built on occult notions, especially relating to hypnosis and the 5 senses of the pentagram or the 3 senses of Vedic, Egyptian, and middle eastern magic. Grinder and Bandler both use shamanic methods in their seminars and teachings, as do many others. Anyway, this is mainly a recap of what we has been explained in the archives. Feel free to check it out. Right now its probably more important to work on the additions/clarifications to the article though. Thanks for sharing your views. Camridge 09:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Whas.  I understand your point of view (I believe) and I know it is quite common for NLP adherants to analyse people using the metamodel.  I suggest it is inappropriate here though.  It may help if you take a closer look at the NPOV policies in general. Forgive me if you already have, but I believe that maybe you have misinterpreted them or some of them.  If a view is supported in the literature it is qualifiable for the article. Your objections are against the views of other experts. I hope you understand that just because you disagree it doesn't mean the view can be removed from the article.  I know as an NLP supporter you may not wish to see those views in the article, but we are writing an encyclopedia article.  I know also that the article needs improving.  Other editors (from all sides) do communicate with me through email, partly to understand what is going on, partly to pass on factual research, and partly to seek or verify research, and sometimes to make more personal "complaints".  You may also contact me by email if you so wish.  Regards HeadleyDown 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to responses to issues raised by Whas 

message: Sala [31] NLP says that adherants base NLP on neurology, linguistics and neurolinguistics. (disputed — see talk page)
Why is there a disputed tag here, when its not even disputed on the discussion page?  HeadleyDown 10:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct Headley.  Its inappropriate and there is no legitimate dispute.  I'll remove it. Bookmain 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute 3: Sala says...

message: It is perfectly ok for users to put dispute tags in places where they dispute facts. It is not ok for others to label the disputes as "illegitimate". That isn't how this works. How this works is that if someone puts the label on, they need to justify it. They deserve to be given time to justify it. Just removing the tags is improper. "They make the article look ugly" does not hold water. The article looks ugly with or without the tags. That's our whole point here: to make the article fit Wikipedia style and sourcing standards. Bookmain, it is not your job to decide what is illegitimate and what isn't. That kind of thing is ruled by consensus. I wish you guys would make more of an attempt to work together. Instead, I'm still seeing people stay on their side of the fence and make little or no attempt to try to compromise or to try to work together. If someone puts a disputed tag up, the proper thing to do is to ask "what do you dispute and why". The improper thing is to just to remove the tags. That's what increases hostility and leads to edit wars. So. Stop. Listen. And try to work together. Think about the betterment of the article over your own views. That's the Wikipedia way. Try to follow it. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted all of bookmain's removal of dispute tags. If this is tried again, the user will be blocked. We're not going to tolerate anything that is going to lead to a revert war or an edit war and this certainly would. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough 

message: To the anti-NLP side, remember, you guys can put disputed tags up as well. Use the same general format that Comaze used, i.e. put the tag up and then in the text itself, use the  to end the reasons. Now, this is not an invitation to overdo this. We don't want to see everyone put 30 disputed tags up. The idea of the tags is to say "hey, I dispute such-and-such" so that then you guys can discuss things. It's not to be disruptive. It's not to prove a point. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, when I say "disputed tags", I am referring to the  tag. Sorry if I wasn't clear. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem. I'll reduce it to about 2-3 main ones within the next few hours. ---=-C-=- 07:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendid.  I'll add a few myself.  HeadleyDown 12:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll focus on the most important ones first. I'll see if I can reduce the number some more ---=-C-=- 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. Just don't want it overdone. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tags 

message: We'd like to keep the dispute tags to 4-5 per user. So Comaze, could you remove several of your tags for now and then you can add back when we've covered your first few? If we have too many tags at once, we're going to have chaos. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I'll reduce it to about 2-3 main ones within the next few hours. ---=-C-=- 07:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendid.  I'll add a few myself.  HeadleyDown 12:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll focus on the most important ones first. I'll see if I can reduce the number some more ---=-C-=- 14:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. Just don't want it overdone. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comaze 

message: Well this is all very encouraging Woohookitty.  You are completely fine on this point.  I will make some posts on the article concerning disputes. And I'll be reasonable about it too.  Reversion warring has been very bad here in the past and I am glad you're doing the job of fairly preventing such things.  I'd also like to reiterate your recommendation to suggest something to change or delete here first, then if there is no dispute go ahead after a few days on the article.  This again will reduce warring.  I know Whas (welcome by the way) is a new editor, and he should be severely forgiven for any out of line moves he has made against that helpful recommendation. Lets keep the snatch and grab to a minimum or not at all. AliceDeGrey 07:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reduce warring (cool idea)

message: ;text moved
Since the mid 1990s NLP has become more widespread, and following the example of Richard Bandler (who attempted legal action to claim the bulk of the field as his own personal intellectual and commercial property because he could not resolve the dispute through the use of NLP . The dispute between Bandler and Grinder over trademarks and copyright was resolved in court of California in 2000 who deemed NLP a generic term  .
;reason for move
<sniped> ---=-C-=- 14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the correction. I prefer to discuss the text, not the authors. The prose needs some work, and then it could be reinserted, don't you think? ---=-C-=- 14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I move to have it stricken from the article.  If anyone wants to resurrect it in the next few minutes, then prepare your argument, place it on the discussion page, and wait to see if somebody doesn't want it before placing it in the article.  If they object, then you have to argue first of course!  Regards HeadleyDown 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. Don't you want it rewritten? ---=-C-=- 15:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No its fine by me to ditch it.  If someone wants to reintroduce it, they can just suggest it on the discussion like anyone else. Perhaps others have a different idea though. HeadleyDown 16:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand, and I think it is not necessary to have it rewritten. Like Headley I know it is fine by me to remove it out also.  HansAntel 05:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bandler and Grinder have resolved their disputes, and released each other of intellectual property claims, clearing the way for future development of the discipline of NLP should probably be included. ---=-C-=- 10:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  text moved (Salerno) 

message: Hello guys.  This is funny, the references are gone somewhere.  I don't know how it is to put them back.  I will have a search on history for them HansAntel 05:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alice DeGrey accidentally commented out the references. Need to be *very* careful with commenting out. Just moving a bracket can remove alot of material. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooops! Sorry about that.  I'll have to double check next time.  AliceDeGrey 04:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. Looks like a tricky problem.  I hope it doesn't deter folk from editing.  I guess newbies can just use any old attribution technique (name, page, date etc), and the oldies such as myself can make it consistent with the link method.  HeadleyDown 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing references section

message: There is an interesting view (and quite neutral) by D.V. Barrett on the career ladder and emeters of NLP.   This shows the more business oriented NLP in an appropriate light.  He states "Like many alternative religions, particularly the Estoeric movements, there is a career ladder within NLP.  Many people find the introductory seminar interesting and thirst for more.  Practitioner training is the place to go next."
Then he gives a brief list of the NLP training steps to the ladder.
He also says they sell a biofeedback GSR meter which is "cheaper and perhaps more effective than the Scientology E-meter".  
Sorry, the ref is "The New Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions"  2001 Barret,D pages 238 and 239
This is pretty concrete information and will also help the reader find a familiar "structure" to NLP. I suggest that it be briefly placed in the therapy or healing section.  Regards.  HeadleyDown 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [The book you refer to can be search and previewed on google print, but the quote could not be found. Also, the pages cited (pp.238-239) are not related to NLP. Could someone else confirm this? ---=-C-=- 05:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, good, I suggest the career ladder be added to the applications section, and the GSR meter info be placed in the therapy section.  Bookmain 03:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Bookmain. 1st I'd like to thank you for your work on this page. 2ndly I'd like to point out that I believe the particualr point about GSR Devices and E-meters is be pushing beyond the bounds of the NPOV policy. While Mr. Dilts may be selling Biofeedback GSR Devices, he may be one of the very few if not only one doing so within the NLP community. None of the main pieces of the body of literature by Bandler, Grinder, Cameron-Bandler, DeLozier, Stephen Gilligan and even Dilts himself contain any mention of or instruction in the use of GSR meters. You will find no standard NLP practitioner and master practioner instruction manuals which contain any mention of using GSR devices. Mr. Dilts is in the negligable minority of NLP trainers involved in the business and promotion of these devices. The NPOV policy states that "views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading..." And clearly, I think this the case in this situation. It would be akin to adding to the Dentistry Wiki that some dentists (like my own) sell magnets to cure back pain, or adding to the Heavy Metal Wiki that 'some metal bands are Hare Krishnas'. It's simply irrelevant and unnecesarily colors the entry. Unless others can provide evidence that the practice of using GSR devices is common and widely used, I suggest that this be left out of the entry in accordance to NPOV policy. Thanks again. Doc_pato 12:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP Emeters

message: Here is an example of an excellent article that has recently reached feature article status, Philosophy of mind. It might serve as a beacon of light — far off in the distance —  	 guiding us to a common destination. We could all learn a great deal from the style and the way the differents points of view are presented. ---=-C-=- 08:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it could be a light at the end of the tunnel, but it may also be someone with a torch and a load of irellevant work to sift through. Lets stick with literature relavant to NLP.  Regards HeadleyDown 10:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Comaze, that isn't a bad article to look towards. It's similar to this one in some ways, including it's heavy sourcing nd different points of view. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems odd to me.  Its a pseudoscience, but there is no view on the article saying it is a pseudoscience.  Seems more than a little one sided to me.  I may start work on that article myself.  Regards HeadleyDown 12:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pseudoscience" is typically one of those pejorative labels we avoid since it invariably ends up intractably disputed. There are those who disagree with the label about pretty much every pseudoscience known to man.  And after all, we don't say "Adolf Hitler, a tyrannial dictator" -- we simply show it to be so with our examples; people can draw that conclusion themselves if they so choose.  Same for Philosophy of mind.  And same for NLP. · Katefan0 (scribble)/poll 04:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Kate.  Wikipedia should not conclude that NLP or the Phil of Mind is pseudoscience.  That can only be added as a view of a scientist or similarly reputable source.  Adolf is an interesting case.  I believe he was interested in lots of pseudoscientific subjects such as phrenology and eugenics.  I'll have a scout around the related sites to make sure the articles don't indicate that wikipedia states anything in particular is pseudocience.  AliceDeGrey 04:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I take the middle ground here.  I reckon that all significant views be included, but I do feel that comparing NLP to Hitler is a little beyond the pale.  Pseudoscientists are somtimes of the good intention variety, and they are also not particularly into genocide.  As NPOV says, with regards to pseudoscience, it needs to be clarified, and that involves stating who views it as a pseudoscientific subject, and explaining that classification (its not always criticism) and letting the reader make up their minds.  I completely agree with Kate on this point though; showing NLP to be a pseudoscience using examples is crucial.  I reckon the major improvements to this article have been in the use of clearer and concrete language.  Obscurantisms are always a problem as they are so misleading and vague. Stating things in concrete terms is helpful.  The philosophy of mind article could also do with more solid terms and phrases.  Bookmain 06:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello Tez. Good question, and always worth asking.  Nobody has to declare science before something is a pseudoscience.  In fact, someone can state it is not a science, and it still be thought of as a pseudoscience. The main criteria for inclusion here, is that it is a reliable view of an expert that something is a pseudoscience. It helps if the expert's explanation is given also. Regards HeadleyDown 12:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, accoriding to pseudoscience, being portrayed as a science is in fact a necessary condition.  Granted, given NPOV, all you would need is an expert's opinion.  But if a spokesperson of the National Academy of Science said cooking was a pseudoscience, they would in fact be wrong.  Claiming that philosophy of mind is pseudoscientific is similarly wrong, which is probably why it isn't in the article. Tez 09:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, its just a matter of research then.  Regards HeadleyDown 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature Article: a beacon of light 

message: I've been in contact with some advanced wikipedians, and they have suggested we attempt another peer-review to get more editors in to make comments and suggestions. I think this is the best way forward from here. Headley, Bookmain - are you interested? ---=-C-=- 02:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be happy with any neutrally minded peer review, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the present effort.  HeadleyDown 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As mentioned above, I have a whole bunch of stuff they can peer review.  From the looks of things, it can all be included.  AliceDeGrey 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, this is a good idea, but honestly, I'm not sure we need more voices here. --Woohookitty(meow) 05:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to disagree, but I'm willing to be guided on this. If the various editors can summarise their positions - that is the positions of the anti-NLP group and the pro-NLP group. Maybe the mentors could assist us with a structured discussion to keep us on-topic. Then we could engage a third opinion on how to integrate the various positions. I currently think the layout and structure of the document is very poor, so this would be the first thing I'd like to get external comment on. ---=-C-=- 05:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  You have already stated that you don't like the structure of the article, and other editors have disagreed with you.  If the present clear structure of the article does not suit you then please present a new argument for why you want it done your way.  I see no reason for any external view on this.  Bookmain 07:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with bringing other opinions in at this point is that you guys tried mediation (which is essentially what you are talking about, Comaze) several times. We were appointed as a new method of trying to work this out. Getting others in here right now would be a step back IMO. The mentors never want to completely close any avenue, but I'm not sure that third opinions would be useful right now. Also, even if other opinions would be brought in, peer review is not really the way to do that. You'd be looking more at Wikipedia:Third opinion or a request for comment. Peer review is generally only for making articles featured candidates. There is precedent for peer review to be used in cases like this, but we would want dispute resolution type things and peer review isn't really for that. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll investigate some ways to engage third opinion, and check back with you. ---=-C-=- 08:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome Hylas.  Well, there's nothing wrong with the article per se, but the way we do things here is a little different from most of Wikipedia.  There is some helpful mentoring going on.  I'm not sure when (or if) you will be able to edit the article.  But thanks for the pointer.  I will make the change. I'm sure the mentors will be able to help you further. Regards HeadleyDown 12:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  peer-review 

message: Further to my previous thread on proposed structure. Here is an interim structure change with notes.
* 1 Overview (merge with introduction)
* 2 Principles
* 3 Theory (merged with Foundational assumptions, Presuppositional beliefs)
:* 3.1 The mind is embodied
:* 3.2 The map is not the territory
:* 3.3 Multiple descriptions
:* 3.4 Representational systems and accessing cues (merge with BAGEL)
:* 3.5 Meta model and Milton model
:* 3.6 Conscious/Unconscious attention
:* 3.7 Bateson's Criteria of mind
:* 3.8 Exceptional individuals can be modeled
*Scientific analysis (move here)
:* 6 Pseudoscience (merged with False claims to science)
* 4 History 
:* 4.1 History (merged with Background 1973-1979)
:* 4.2 History (1980-1986)
:* 4.3 History (1986-present)
* 5 Alternative brands or schools
* 6 Common Applications
:* 7.1 Psychotherapy
:* 4.2 Sales training
:* 4.3 Business management
:* 4.4 Motivational seminars
:* 4.5 Learning (Education) 
:* 4.6 New Age
:* 4.7 Criticism
:* 7.1 Ethical concerns
* 7 Criticism
* 8 See also
:* 9.1 Developers
* 9 Notes and references
* 10 External links
This is my plan for the structure of the document. We will probably have to get lots of comments on this one. I think it will make the document much easier to read. I've made some adjustments to make it clearer. ---=-C-=- 13:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Comaze. It would be far more constructive to ignore any distracting arguments about structure or rewriting articles and focus on getting the citations in order.  HeadleyDown 02:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This layout seems much more comprehensive than the current article, which is a good thing. At this point it would be a matter of proposing and building the structure one point at a time. My suggestion would be to begin that process, or begin to hammer out the details structure that currently matches. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Doc Pato 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change (structure): High level plan 

message: ;Text to insert
"...several organizations such as NLP, Insight and 
Landmark Education which are not religions but are usually categorized 
as 'personal development movements'. They are included for three 
reasons. First, though the organisations are not religions, personal 
development or self-improvement is a common religious aim, so there an 
overlap in the perceived benefits which members gain from them. Second, 
some the techniques of these organisations are used in movements which 
are religious. And third, some of these organisations have met 
criticisms similar to those made of new religions by anti-cult groups. 
However, it should be stressed that this" ... "is not suggesting that 
they are sects or cults, nor classing them as religions." p.13  The New 
Believers: A Survey of Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions David V 
Barrett  
(http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN1844030407&id=OwT1ctFO42MC&vq=NLP&dq=%22new+age%22+NLP&lpg=PA12&pg=PA13&sig=1HdAFIAWLMeUpBPw7UkJcd4qLQk)
;Where
There several places where the sociologist view is presented in a blatantly biased way (New Age, Cults, etc.). This quote or a paraphrase of it would help with WP:NPOV ---=-C-=- 00:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see a problem with this Comaze, however it would help if you would propose a specific place to insert this. Doc Pato 02:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  This comment does not negate the fact that there are views that NLP is new age, a cult and so on.    In fact there is nothing new here at all.  It is already stated that Barrett says that the balance comes down against calling NLP a religion.  The NLP article does not say that Barrett thinks NLP is a cult or a sect.  So what is your point?  HeadleyDown 02:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't mind opening the can of worms a little wider.  One needs to look at what Barrett actually wrote about NLP, rather than what he writes about his book.  For example, how is NLP criticised in a similar way to how cults are criticised?  He states that the fervour of many adherents is similar to the fervour of religious converts. He also states that PDMs have been criticised for a reluctance to let go of people once they have become involved.  Also, what does he mean by personal development movements?  He does not say that Emin, TM, NLP, Scientology, Dianetics are religions, but that they are all PDMs.  So, we would need to list all the PDMs, and state the criticisms in the article. Winkin is also an anthropologist (sociologist).  He has more to say on this. Bookmain 04:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  add to sociologist view, Barrett  

message: I added a section for those who choose not to program in the refs.  Of course there should be no stipulation for any editor to have to laboriously go through the refs and learn to program them in.  It is quite acceptable (and definitely much clearer anyway) to place a name date and page number next to a quote, and then clearly write the source in that section.  The refs were all there before, but somehow they got swiped away by someone.  Please do not let that happen again. Enough time has been wasted by vexacious editors already. Any such censorious moves should be reverted immediately. Bookmain 08:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was agreed upon in mediation that we use inline referencing. I should remind you that the <reference />  format is the new standard for wikipedia. It handles automatic numbering and backlinks which helps improve. See . ---=-C-=- 08:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Comaze.  This is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.　If an editor wants to helpfully add a citation and page number etc, then they should be given a chance to do it.  Editors have already showed agreement to do this.  However, for some reason, the software simply does not work for my computer, and I believe others will have the same problem.  So the only way I can help clear up citations is to add the page numbers etc on the article.  New editors should also have that option.  For editors who have the technological capability, they can convert those references.  For example, you could do it yourself instead of telling others to do it.  Bookmain 08:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind teaching people how to use the new citation style. But creating a section for it and then converting references to a nonstandard format  is just poor form. ---=-C-=- 08:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Comaze, I think we are going to have to be flexible on this one.  Especially as the priority here is to attribute quotes properly. Bookmain's suggestion is both constructive and timely.  The section can be removed if ever it becomes unused or unuseful. HeadleyDown 10:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze, you removed the small section I supplied for new editors and editors like myself, for whom the citation software does not work.  Your action is both unconstructive, and I believe it leads to exclusive privelage (for those who can use the technology).  Your unconstructive action is noted. I will replace the section heading (without any citations) in order to invite other new editors to help with the attribution efforts here. Bookmain 05:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprogrammed refs

message: Bookmain says "Any such censorious moves should be reverted immediately. Bookmain 08:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  If you think I am a sockpuppet, prove it and stop casting aspersions. By censorious moves, I mean people removing citations that previously took weeks to write in.  Reverting such deletions is constructive. It is akin to reverting vandalism (deliberate reduction in the quality of the article). So why are you arguing against reverting such actions? Bookmain 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No reverts!

message: Once you are convinced that this proposed change passes wikipedia policies, let's get a third opinion. It will take me alteast a few day - how long do you need? The third person could compare this with my suggested change: Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#Proposed_edit:_Common_patterns. They select the most appropriate, or merge best of the two suggestion. WP:3O. ---=-C-=- 06:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we seek Woohookitty's opinion.  I remember his advice on clear language was always constructive.  HeadleyDown 06:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Atleast we agree on getting a third opinion on this change. Go ahead and take you time to bring you suggestion change up to standard, I'll do the same then we'll engage a third opinion via WP:3O. Woohookitty may or may not be available, and has kept out of content disputes. ---=-C-=- 06:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohookitty is a helpful mentor, and though he has been busy with other things, his influence remains.  I believe his opinion on clarity rather than content as a mentor is more appropriate here. Even I need some advice sometimes on what a reader is likely to see as obscure jargon. HeadleyDown 07:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohookitty is helpful yes, and good with the clear words.  This issue is just matter of checking content though.  Looking through literature is the only thing that will do it.  Any legitimate editor can do it.  I did it myself and it is correct. THe patterns of Headleys suggestion are right and I found the uncited ones myself because they are obviously there.  This is just like before when VoiceOfAll ask the NLPers if representation systems was still taught, and they deny it, even when it is in all the new NLP books in the shop.  HansAntel 02:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed: third opinion