Talk:Principles of NLP/Archive 1

message: I agree. We should link the abstract on the main page to the article here. The trouble with diluting the principles into the main page has been the principles become completely nonsensical and inappreciable to a reader. This article has a distinctly differently flavour to the main page. It is presenting what practices you actually find in NLP. The main article is presenting a larger perspective on NLP. Keeping the articles separate helps prevent the 'opinion piece' style and volatility of the main page from polluting well researched information being presented on the principles of NLP. So while I concur that care needs to be taken to defer readers to the main page for a context on NLP, I also concur that the topic of the principles of NLP is notable, distinct, and substantive (and even has a history of it's own that is distinct from the history of NLP that is presented on the main page). I nominate to remove the merge tag from this page as it is discordant with the NLP project team which has begun in good faith and is acting in good faith towards writing an encyclopedia. Peace. Metta Bubble 07:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emerging Project 

message: The external link I am restoring was posted by the creator of this article. It is clearly a source for the content on this page, both at the time of creation and currently. I agree the website being linked to has some marketing at the bottom and so I would gladly consider a link that doesn't do this. However, as it stands, this is our best external source for the current content on this article.
Please do not revert based on previous biases or problems with other articles. This article is it's own beast and should avoid WP:POINT issues. If anyone would like a third opinion on this, please seek one at the third opinion page. Peace. Metta Bubble 02:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The External Link Posted By The Creator 

message: (as requested on Wikipedia:Third_opinion)
The link used as reference looks like a typical spam URL (nlp-now.co.uk), have you tried finding a source from an educational insitution TLD? Obli (Talk) 17:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding Obli. A good suggestion, and I would welcome one, except that most NLP training occurs in private organisations, so that's where we probably have to look for accurate educational information. Universities that do teach NLP (and there are some) haven't got course material online that one can find easily. Until info is found, I suggest leaving the current first external link as a good indicator for what represents the current article. But here's another one if that helps. Maybe it's best if we add a few different ones from google so it's less likely to appear like spam. The current last external link is interesting in it's scientific perspective but it is not really The Principles of NLP. Peace. Metta Bubble 23:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd opinion 

message: The raison d'etre of this article is to subvert editorial efforts towards NPOV and scientific rigour.  The content of the article overlaps with the NLP article -- minus any critical opinion -- and it is not far removed from an instructional manual on NLP. The sprawling NLP sub-articles should be pruned back.  Despite marketing propaganda that suggests otherwise, NLP is simple and it can be covered in one article.  NLP isn't an academic subject, it's a commercial product and it has been discredited by scientific experimentation and review. Hence there should be no NLP project. flavius 09:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to nominate any article for deletion at WP:AFD. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 11:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has the merge tag. Has any work been done to integrate this into the main NLP article. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge tag's applicability is disputed by at least two editors, and perhaps a third. The main article contains a brief version, so enough content has been merged and enough has been kept separate for a good treatment in both articles. The treatment in the main article is too brief to justify deleting this article... as FT2 has said, and I concur, as per previous points above (let me know if you don't find them easily enough). Peace. Metta Bubble 10:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principles of NLP Should Be Deleted 

message: A third opinion was requested on this page. Persuant to such, I have evaluated this conflict, and determined two things. Firstly, the link to the Pegasus should be included in this article as it is a good example of one groups list of Fundamental Principles. The link, however, should be clear that it is the view only of Pegasus NLP Trainings, and not fully accepted. Additionally, I find that this article appears to be a POV Fork, and likley should be merged into the Main NLP article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the 3O. I would like to evaluate whether people still thinks it's a POV fork when the main article has finally settled down. It's difficult to classify something as POV fork if there is a project team for it. I believe we will see that this article here is a distinct topic, much as Psychotherapy has daughter articles of Brief therapy, Group Therapy, Gestalt Therapy, Cognitive Therapy, Behaviorism, and so on. This is probably the most relevant daughter article to NLP, outside of a list of practices. I believe some articles might be deleted, but not this one. It's a core teaching of NLP and would be difficult to treat properly in a way that keeps the main article trim. Peace. Metta Bubble 10:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3o]]