Talk:Representational systems (NLP)

message: Just to clarify stands for:
*V = Visual
*A = Auditory
*K = kinesthetic
*O = Olfactory
*G = Gustatory
 Famousdog  (c) 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: VAKOG

message: As far as I can tell this page is an advertisement.99.132.249.24 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links are commercial

message: FWIW, I found the introduction fairly heavy going, but perhaps this is appropriate for a more formal/theory-based article? Natebailey (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very dense beginning! 

message: I have rewritten the lead because it contained redundancies, had no citations and presented NLP postulates as matters of fact.  The remainder of the article needs attention. AnotherPseudonym (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-wrote Lead 

message: So, given that NLP is considered pseudoscience by most academia, yet despite the lack of similar consensus among mental health professionals some of whom still make use of the techniques of NLP, nonetheless every last reference to the original authors of NLP is tagged as "unreliable fringe source"? Really? 
So in other words, despite the original works of the authors who originated the subject matter of this article (a particular model of NLP pseudoscience) being the clearest references available on the subject, these works are nonetheless tagged as unreliable and fringe? Seems like a misuse of the tag.  
To quote from the template itself: "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review. Other considerations for notability should be considered as well. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects.
The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative."
I hereby submit that, if the prominence of fringe or pseudoscientific views is to be kept in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field, then limiting that perspective to only the opponents of that view greatly impedes the function of the article to describe the pseudoscientific view being opposed in the first place.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.16.46 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, read the discussion right above this one for an explanation of the ridiculous tagging on this article. Basically, User:That_Guy,_From_That_Show! forced my hand. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable Fringe Source? Really?