Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/General workshop

message: Does anyone have changes they'd like to make to the article?  If so, you should make them, and remember, use text moves instead of reverts.  These abstract discussions aren't helping move the article forward.  Take it slow, but let's begin to turn to what folks think needs to be done to the article in specific. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refocusing 

message: Btw- I've change my handle to c.. You can still search for my posts by search for "--c". --c 06:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  I will consider posting details when you start attributing your comments to yourself properly.  Camridge 02:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello mentors.  I would like to know if you consider Comaze's refusal to give-and-take a form of conflict promotion or not, considering his same action led to a blocking recently?  Best regards Camridge 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am having trouble knowing how do address you.  People get booted for a day due to their not complying with the username of the user. But why am I telling you this, you know because you were part of yesterdays discussion.  What do you want me to call you?  Your real name, your initials (SC), or Comaze? Camridge 05:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean that you don't want to conceal your real name, and the fact you are Comaze?  I request that you not do anything so awkward as it will make it hard for anyone to search for your comments within discussions. Editors are doing their best to remain cooperative and I suggest that should be honoured in kind.  Camridge 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handle Change - From Comaze to 'c' 

message: #All behavior occurs in the context of internal state .
::'In NLP, the notions of "State" or "State of Mind" refer to a gestalt of the neurological processes (mind and body) within an individual at any given time.  A state is comprised of the ongoing mental and physical conditions from which a person is acting...The basic premise of NLP is that the human brain functions similarly to a computer -- by executing "programs" or mental strategies that are composed of ordered sequences of instructions  or internal representations...The efficacy and ease with which a particular mental program is carried out is to a large degree determined by the physiological state of the individual...Thus, an individual's internal state has improtant influences on his or her ability to perform in any situation...sometimes particular abilities can be too state-dependent. pp.1300-3 NLP Encyclopedia  Also if you remove this premise the flow of the section will be lost as this is a premise that leads to consclusions -- it is part of the "logic" of NLP. flavius 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze.  Please reinstate the above foundational assumption.  flavius 12:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the whole point of text moves is to put them here and discuss them. It's still under discussion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I think this thread can now be closed. ---=-C-=- 23:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text move "behavior occurs in the context" (by Comaze) 

message: The swish discussion has been closed and reworked language reinstated inside the article. This is the next text move.  If Comaze is still reading this, he or someone else who agrees with the text move will need to justify why it should be removed or explain how it should be changed. Here's the repost:
*Text moved: All behavior occurs in the context of internal state [47].
::In NLP, the notions of "State" or "State of Mind" refer to a gestalt of the neurological processes (mind and body) within an individual at any given time. A state is comprised of the ongoing mental and physical conditions from which a person is acting...The basic premise of NLP is that the human brain functions similarly to a computer -- by executing "programs" or mental strategies that are composed of ordered sequences of instructions or internal representations...The efficacy and ease with which a particular mental program is carried out is to a large degree determined by the physiological state of the individual...Thus, an individual's internal state has improtant influences on his or her ability to perform in any situation...sometimes particular abilities can be too state-dependent. pp.1300-3 NLP Encyclopedia Also if you remove this premise the flow of the section will be lost as this is a premise that leads to consclusions -- it is part of the "logic" of NLP. flavius 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Others? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No.  See "Text moved" above.  Comaze or someone else who agrees that this language is problematic needs to justify why and how it needs to be changed by Friday. If that doesn't happen, it'll be reinstated into the workshop. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, well, go ahead and reinstate it. The workshop page is open for any kind of editing, as long as you aren't reverting someone else. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done. Can we now close this thread, and now it to the archives? ---=-C-=- 23:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Next ("internal state" text move)

message: Hello all.  I wish to move forward constructively.  I have a suggestion:  Lets start suggesting additions, rather than removals and deletions to the article.  We will only manage consensus on items of fact.  It is no good trying to delete the stated facts of scientists and sociologists.  There has never been any valid reason to delete the views of scientists, and there probably never will (unless Wikipedia NPOV policy starts to favour pseudoscience or anti-science over science).  
I believe the changes that the mediators have focused upon (eg JP's suggestion) are quite likely to lead to consensus.   Here are some areas that I believe are likely to lead to consensus:
*Sociological views that NLP is a new age development (placed in the opening and in the overview)
*The views that NLP is cultlike, a cult or set of cults, and used within cults (the stated views of various authors)
*The views about NLP's popularity within the new age movement and commercialism
Please add any areas that you feel you are most in agreement with, and then we can have a better chance of altering them slightly, and gaining consensus
PS, lets stick to baby steps, its futile and unconstructive to chop large or diverse parts from the article, and then argue for them to be deleted.  Best regards Camridge 04:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Politely urging constructive suggestions

message: All,
We have opened a workshop page which you are free to edit. 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: New topics need to go at the bottom. The "Camridge version of opening line" section was originally placed almost at the top for some reason. Doing that makes it very hard for everyone (including the mentors) to follow the discussion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little reminder 

message: In Mind Myths: Exploring Popular Assumptions About the Mind and Brain (edited by Sergio Della Sala) -- a collection of essays by prominent psychologists and neuroscientists  -- Corballis describes states that "[Neurolinguistic Programming] is a thoroughly fake title, designed to give the impression of scientific respectability.  Neurolinguistic programming has little to do with neurology, linguistics, or even the respectable sub-discipline of neurolinguistics" (p.41).  Corballis also specifies NLP as one of the "big business" self-improvement programmes that "pay extensive homage" to myths regarding brain lateralisaion (p. 29).
Mind Myths is published by Wiley and it isn't a "sceptical" book.  It is a scientific review of popular assumptions about neurology.  Thus we have at least four indepedent authors -- Drenth, Levelt, Beyerstein and Corballis -- making the same conclusions about NLP. flavius 03:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On what evidence does Corballis make these claims? ---=-C-=- 08:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  Are you referring to a particular Wikipedia policy that requires Flavius to give you a detailed account of why the said author has come to his conclusions?  I suspect Flavius is perfectly capable of supplying it, but I question whether it is necessary or not.  Regards HeadleyDown 13:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite obvious that Corballis view is skeptical and its biases should be identified, see wikipedia policy - guide for controversial articles. If Corballis' view is based on experimental evidence then the specific studies should be identified - not just the bald commentary. ---=-C-=- 22:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  So there is no particular stipulation to provide in depth analysis of an author's views?  I'm not altogether sure what you mean by skeptical then.  Do you mean scientifically informed?  Regards HeadleyDown 00:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Headley.  I searched the Wikipedia policy pages and found no such requirement.  I believe Comaze needs to explain himself more clearly.  As regards Corballis:  His writing and support are wonderfully clear, so I am happy to write about his (and many other scientist's) conclusion.  He is a Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Auckland.  He has written a great many papers on neuroscience, especially the science concerning hemispheric specialization.  His conclusions are that NLP is wrong.  There are many pseudosciences that use the split brain simplification.  Its an historical phenomenon as much as anything.  The New Age has promoted a great many comforting and simplistic notions using neurobabble to support it.  Its a problem with the "West's" need for "spirituality with scientific support".  The left-right brain mythologies are popular due partly to its male female/yin yang dichotomy.  NLP still refers to the early misconceptions about dominant/non dominant brain.  Its a gross and misleading oversimiplification, about as trite and inaccurate as using the term "bugs" instead of bacteria.  Furthermore, NLP books commonly place left and right with certain "brain skills".  Right includes intuition, psychic elements, emotion, and so on.  Left includes logic, critical skills etc.  They base their assumptions on the untested, outdated, and rather extreme opinions of Sperry and Ornstein.  The majority of neuroscientists considers that untested notion to be highly dubious.  And the empirical studies that have been conducted around such matters indicate overwhelmingly that those notions are false.  Corballis and many others, such as Druckman and Swets, Singer, Beyerstein, Sharpley, and so on, say that NLP uses such simplifications in order to make their seminars and books comforting and attractive by "riding on the coattails of the term neuroscience".  Adding "neuro" to their product, NLP are behaving fraudulently.  This is also the view of Professor Heap, the clinical psychologist.  I have not added page numbers to this account because I am explaining Corballis' conclusions.  Corballis is a Professor of neuroscience, and his view is verifiable and valid.  His clarity and rigour makes it enjoyable to write about his conclusions in this discussion. JPLogan 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello Comaze.  The view of Corballis has already been well presented and he is clearly biased.  More specifically he's biased towards independent scientific research (published neuroscience and clinical psychology) and he mistrusts scientifically unsupported testimonials. Drenth, Levelt and Beyerstein the same. I have no problem with that being noted in an appendix.  Cheers DaveRight 01:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DaveRight, You've indentified a bias of Corballis in saying "[he] mistrusts scientifically unsupported testimonials" -- can you rewrite this in a more sympathetic tone and present the counter-argument? ---=-C-=- 02:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  Personally, I know I can!  Camridge 04:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  View Corroborating Drenth, Levelt and Beyestein 

message: If we are going to write that NLP as a movement is in some way similar to New Age movement then we're going to also provide a counter argument and attributed and associations to reputable/reliable sources
;Similarities & Differences 
#NLP is a communication model:  Sensory specific language may be used to describe subjective experience including spiritual experience
#We are limited to our five senses:  The NLP model consists of five senses, what we see, hear, feel, touch, smell & taste. In the New Age movement, followers often claim to have a sixth sense.   
#we don't know what we don't know." This was presented in Structure Vol.1 (1975a). 
#There is no energy required or applied in mental process: Grinder (1986) and Bateson (1972, 1979) criticise the "uncritical importation of energy into the discussion of thinking and language" this is a direct challenge to Freud's followers and the New Agers of California. There is a need to differential between "psychic energy" (Freud, New Age) in emotion, physical energy and collateral energy (Bateson/Grinder). New Age people and some psychologists still use the "psychic energy" of emotion - a metaphor which is rejected by many NLP practitioners. 
#Psychic Energy is commonly discussed by some but not all NLP practitioners - the notion of psychic energy in thinking and language, made popular by Freud, and more recently in the New Age movement is completely rejected by John Grinder anbd Judith Delozier (1986) citing Gregory Bateson (1972, 1979).
#Some New Agers buy into the idea of unlimited potential:  outcomes and goals can be set and acheived, but should be humanly possible in order to be well-formed 
#While some critics disagree on this matter, others (eg. x) claim that NLP spiritual elements citing Dilt's Neuro logical levels which has a category for considering spirit or vision aspects of an outcome. Spirit is not necessary in this model and is often replaced with strategic vision for business contexts. NOTE: We'd also need to include criticism of Dilts' model including the fact that it is not accepted by all schools (eg. Grinder) of NLP
#For some, the spiritual component of Dilts neurological levels is important, others replace this with strategic vision - some NLP practitioners reject Dilts' model because it is a content (not process) model. They also reject the spirit questions because this is personal content that does not belong in NLP ---=-C-=- 01:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarities and Differences

message: Hello Comaze.  It seems to me that what you have presented is original research (OR).  The view that NLP is fundamentally New Age is overwhelming.  Apart from it being an intuitively correct (and quite nice) term, NLP promoters advertise themselves as New Age, they often advertise themselves in the media as New Age Gurus, or the High Priest of the New Age, or New Age Hero.  Most importantly (for the sake of Wikipedia), independent sociologicsts and scientists call NLP a New Age therapy, and they base their conclusions upon NLP's magical theories, its use of human potential concepts, its claimed ethical neutrality (as with magic), and its appeal to the public through pop psychology/pseudoscience.  There is no reliable voice to oppose these facts.  NLP is New Age and good solid verifiable research has been presented for undeniable support. No matter what, it seems the fact will be prestented in the article with all the clarity required. Regarding the first line, the alternative would be to place the terms "quasi-spiritual/quasi-religious" in the first line.  But it seems inevitable that the New Age fact will be clearly presented in the article to help the reader.  ATB.  Camridge 02:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already responded in the discussion section. The view Camridge, JPLogan, HeadleyDown and DaveRight have presented as very similar and fail to present any counter-arguments. What specific points do you consider Original research? Please move this discussion to the Discussion section below: ---=-C-=- 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion (similarities and differences) 

message: You know, it'd be wonderful if someone in this discussion said "OK. This is what I want. Remove x and y and replace it with z". Why do you all insist on these long discussions where you just hammer the same points you've hammered for months and months? What does it accomplish? Absolutely nothing. We're now at 500K in this discussion...500K...and nothing has been accomplished. Absolutely nothing. This is not a discussion board. It's an encyclopedia article. I want to see what you want changed and how you want to change it. That's all. Nothing else. I think we all now know what each of you think of NLP. Great. So let's work on the article, shall we? And what I find interesting is that I think everyone here thinks that that's what they are doing. You aren't. You are discussing and discussing and discussing but nothing is being settled. Discussion is wonderful if it leads to something. Discussion just for the sake of discussion is as destructive as an edit war is. It just delays the inevitable conflict that will result once people don't feel like discussing anymore. What I want to know is. Is anybody willing to compromise with others to come to a consensus? That's what we should be focusing on. If we don't, we'll be at this in 2007 and we will be at this same point. I wish I was kidding but I'm not. Enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I realize that one of the problems with NLP is not everyone agrees on what it is. I think our best bet is to find the things that every NLP group agrees on and then also discuss in the article things that the "fringe" or outside groups see NLP as. I also like the idea of the intro being a sentence of what most NLP groups see NLP as and then a sentence about what the critics say. And I'd also like to see the 2 sides of this debate come to an agreement as to what they want to say...as a group. Right now, we have too many chefs stirring the pot. Let's narrow it down a bit. Again, these are just some general ideas for people to go with. Try to stick to them. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for refocusing us - I absolutely agree with you we need to be firmly focused on the goal.  Johntex\talk 11:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough II 

message: Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) is based on the idea that you can find someone who excels at something, find out how they do it, and learn to do it yourself. Its goal is to identify what patterns of relationship between brains, language and bodies exceptional individuals have, to change habits and thinking patterns. Techniques are applied in various areas ranging from psychotherapy and personal development, sports and education to management training and relationships.
There are various criticisms of the discipline of NLP:
:#Some of its techniques have had little direct support in psychological and experimental literature.
:#There are no formally agreed-upon standards for practitioners
:#There is disagreement and wide variations among individual trainers and practiioners regarding definitions as to what NLP itself is, and what constitutes NLP.  There are as many ways of doing NLP as there are practitioners.
:#NLP has no inherent moral or ethical framework, i.e. it is a set of techniques, whose use are left to the discretion of the practitioner
---=-C-=- 03:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to mention this before. We'd prefer one paragraph, but NLP is a big subject. If it takes 2, it takes 2. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Comaze. Are you suggesting a replacement for the opening line or more? In some ways it appears as though you're talking about the whole opening section? (ps. I don't agree with the last sentence of #3.) Greg 05:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a proposed replacement for the entire opening section - it is currently too wordy and needs to be cut back. There are counter examples to points #1, #2 and #3. eg. Some supporting literature, various standards bodies exist that promote ecological use (NLPta, NLPTRB, Society of NLP). These counter-examples could be presented in the body of the article. ---=-C-=- 05:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comaze opening (simple language)

message: Yes I see something about energy.  But there are no statements that say Grinder et al do not derive techniques from New Age philosophies.  Grinder only mentions the New Age concept of spirit and energy.  The only thing we can say is that Grinder disputes the New Age notion of spirituality and energy in NLP. However, he also says you can send your energy to various realities.  According to the literature, NLP advocates have been designing their product with New Agers in mind.  Thus, it includes New Age concepts of non-judgmentalism, eclecticism, mind over matter, "you create your own reality", neuromyths, elementals, archetypes, and so on.  There is no reliable evidence to say NLP is not New Age.  There are abundant admissions in the literature that NLP is about human potential. The human potential is a part of the New Age.  It is compromise enough to put the useful phraze New Age in the first line, and then link to human potential. There may be some splintering in NLP, but in a general sense its all the same especially regarding New Age. However, I think I have another idea.  How about this compromising characterization:  
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is a set of techniques or rituals that adherents use primarily as an approach to psychotherapy, healing, communication and personal development.   NLP is based on the idea that you can find out how individuals succeed, and learn to do it yourself. The goal is to identify what patterns of relationship between brains, language and bodies, to change habits and thinking patterns.  
Most of NLP’s rituals and beliefs, and philosophies are derived from the New Age movement.  NLP is criticized for promoting pseudoscientific and magical thinking, for being a cult or cult-like, and being promoted using exaggerated claims regardless of reviews of experimental studies which have shown negative overall results.
Actually, I believe this is a reasonable compromise for now, while we clarify the New Age aspects in the main body of the article.  Regards  HeadleyDown 15:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks Davey. Thats much better.  I tidied it a little bit. ATB Camridge 02:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thats good.  It looks in neutral and ready to roll. Bookmain 10:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence looks fine.  I'm sure more detal can be provided in the main body of the article. I've added it to the opening with a slight adjustment. Regards HeadleyDown 12:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy 

message: ;Counseling (Psychology, Anthropology)
*"John A Rush (1999) Stress and Emotional Health: Applications of Clinical Anthropology: "In the mid-to-late 1970s the hot item was neurolinguistic programming (NLP) (Bandler & Grinder 1975b; Grinder & Bandler 1976; Dilts et al 1980). NLP is based on the Ericksonian hypnotherapeutic techniques (Grinder & Bandler 1975a; Grinder et al 1977) and the linguistic position of Noam Chomsky (157; 1968; see also Pinker 1994), which involveds generative grammar. This is, the language/symbolic process is innate to the human mind (and perhaps other animals as well), and the specific language(s) learned represent content. The content or grammar, therefore has unlimited possibilities... "
*"[Bandler & Grinder] decided to do an in-depth study of Fritz Perls (the founder of Gestalt therapy), Virginia Satir (a founder of familiy therapy and systemic therapy) and Milton Erikcson (founder of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis). They looked at their patterns of language and behaviour - what they actually said and did when doing their work, as opposed to what they said they were doing - what we would call their 'map of the world'. The modellers discovered a rich variety of extra unconscious (out-of-awareness) attitudes and skills. Thus the field of NLP was born, in people, and incorporated relevant skills, information and models from the fields of systems theory, anthropology, behavioural psychology and linguistics." p.160 .
;Grinder (linguist and co-founder of NLP)
*Grinder & Bostic St Clair (2001) Whispering in the wind: "From the beginning contact with Grinder and Bandler, Milton unselfishly offered full access and constant guidange to them, [] greatly facilitating their work"(p.94)
---=-C-=- 06:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Erickson's influence

message: ;Counselling and Psychotherapy
*Introduction to Counselling and Psychotherapy: The Essential Guide, edited by Stephen Palmer: Bernhard Trenkle (2001) The Ha-Ha Handbook: "Structure of Magic is the title of a book by Grinder and Bandler. The inventors of NLP assumed that neither witchcraft nor sorcery was involved in the astoundingly successful results acheived with almost magical swiftness and sureness by the masters of psychotherapy. They believed, instead, in underlying principles that can be taught and learned. They analyzed and interpreted the forms of communication used by "the masters of the trade," such as Erickson, Perls and Satir. Later this method of analyzing complex therapeutic behavior was also applied to other masters of communication. However, according to some psychotherapists, interpretation was often stretched too far, resulting in an overemphasis on the magical aspect of communication." (p.113)
---=-C-=- 06:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes no difference to any of the statements in the opening. It merely states that they propose some kind of ritual or method. This is also not a primary source. Statements from BnG will be more valid. Regards HeadleyDown 13:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "neither witchcraft nor sorcery was involved"

message: The opening should be the "management summary" of the article, shouldn't it? I propose to remove any mentioning of "new age" and other potentially POV words (it might sound neutral to you, in most of Europe, "New Age" rhymes with "pseudoscience bullshit").
I further propose to list the important aspects of NLP in the opening paragraph:
* Started in 1973 by Linguist John Grinder and graduate student Richard Bandler
* Much of the original work was the attempt to "model" Erickson, Satyr, Pearls
* Exists today in many different variations, from scientific approaches to New Age healing and human potential versions.
I've done my share of NLP research, and it appears clearly to me that there is a fairly small "core" of NLP belief, and a very large area of "extensions" where different people have plugged in different views. There's the "marketing and persuasion" angle (which is not part of Bandler/Grinders work until at least the 80s), there's the New Age angle (which apparently Bandler alone took to, probably for reasons of market share) and so on.
I suggest splitting the article likewise, maybe along a time-table, saying "original work" and "later extensions". Especially in light of the fact that many practitioners of NLP today have a very dim view of what Bandler has done to it during the past 10 years or so.
--213.191.86.35 12:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Points for Opening

message: I just archived most of this page. I did it for a few reasons. One is that we've reached the point where some of these discussions are a month old and they haven't had any action in awhile. Secondly, it's for size reasons. The page had gotten to be so large (530K) that for slow connections like mine, it was taking well over a minute to open. If a user wants to reopen a discussion from the talk page, bring it back onto this page IN FULL. If you don't know how to do this, ask one of the mentors. Thank you. As note at the top, the archive is here. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 16:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Woohookitty.  I'm sure thats helpful to all. Regards HeadleyDown 00:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially me! :-D --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 01:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived (IMPORTANT) 

message: :Hello Comaze.  Firstly, we need to agree with the literature-founded facts in the first line of the article above.  Once that is done, it would be constructive to first explain to us why you want to strike the fact from the article. We need to focus on being constructive.  One agreement at a time.  Regards HeadleyDown 04:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove text 

message: Follow is a list of unused references:
 
;Unused
*Paul Ekman Crime Uncovered: You've got the look: Would you lie to me? The Observer, London (UK): Sunday, April 27, 2003 p.58
*    
*Science and Sanity An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, Alfred Korzybski, Preface by Robert P. Pula, Institute of General Semantics, 1994 (first published 1933), hardcover, 5th edition, 
*Leikind, B. J., & McCarthy, W. J. (1991). An investigation of firewalking. In K. Frazier (Ed.)., The hundredth monkey and other paradigms of the paranormal (pp.182-193). Buffalo, NY
*Strean, H. (1995) PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY. Kegan Page Publishers
*
*
*
*     
*Overdurf, J, Silverthorn, J (1995) Training Trances: Multi-Level Communication in Therapy and Training Metamorphous Press; 3rd edition 
*
*
* 
*
*Schacter.D (1997) Searching for Memory: The Brain, the Mind, and the Past.  Publisher: Basic Books;  
*
*
* Gallo, F, (2001) Energy Psychology in Psychotherapy. Norton and Company publishers.    
* Gallo, F, (1998) Energy Psychology Norton and Company publishers.    
*    
*Barrett, D. (1997) Sects, Cults and Alternative Religions: A World Survey and Sourcebook. Pub Blandford.
*
*
*Lakin, D. (2000) The Unfair Advantage: Sell with NLP! (Paperback) Lakin Associates 
*
* 
*
*
-----------------
please move the unused references to an archive. best regards, ---=-C-=- 05:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few that may be acceptable for a subsection on Education (Craft 2001) and "Marketing communications" (Skinner, H. and Stephens, P. 2003); we can discuss it closer to the time.  we could use such as  in a subsection about Education and Marketing. But we can discuss that when it comes up. The objective is to clear out the unused references - any objections to movings to an archive? ---=-C-=- 23:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's agreed to, I'll make it a subsection of the workshop for now. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Many of the references are being used, but over the months of deletions, a lot of the attributions have been removed.  Keeping the sources in one spot (the article) will help thought processes and attributing statements, rather than moving sources to disparate areas of wikipedia.  Thus, I will disagree with any such movement, at least until the present opening lines have been dealt with and placed into the opening.  I find this "unused ref move" quite unconstructive.  Cheers DaveRight 05:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to this... would it be useful making a separate page which just lists references - including some brief info on where it was published, possible biases, and actual quotes. These references may or may not appear in the article - but at least in 6 months time if someone adds a "new" reference, they can always check to see if it's already been looked up or whatever. What do you think? Greg 06:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an article created for that purpose, it is now outdated... [] ---=-C-=- 08:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive unused references  

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) 02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, I support the blocks. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 02:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello KatefanO and Woohookitty.  What is there to do with you?  I have spoken to Dave and JP on Skype myself and they are both very different people.  Dave is Black and JP comes from Cork in Ireland.  If you feel sore enough to block me, then go right ahead. Au revoir  AliceDeGrey 05:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not block people because "we're sore". We block them because they have violated a specific policy that we have set down for this article (with the full endorsement of the arbcom) or they have violated a general Wikipedia policy. Your comments do neither. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I understand wikipedia policy is biased towards editors who are middle-class enough to afford their own home computers. (I would never suggest you don't like black or Irish people). Never mind.  The offer is still open.  If it makes you feel any better, you can still block or ban me if you like.  I'm not American, white, or middle-class either.  I'm French-Arab. I'm sure it doesn't make any difference, but I also have meatpuppets to work with.  Au revoir.  AliceDeGrey 07:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Alice.  I'd actually like to come to the defence of the mentors this time.  I reckon they've been quite ok recently.  They have a set of (perhaps biased) wikipedia recommendations to follow and they are actually being fairly straight about it.  And it makes no difference if we all get our accounts deleted. The facts will be presented some way or other. The persistence level is just overwhelming. And the more that some editors struggle to remove facts, the more solid, neutral, and impassive those facts become. ATB.  Camridge 07:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We appreciate the compliments. Thank you. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well you've been blocked now, Alice. I don't understand you guys who refuse to follow our rules. I really don't. Our rules are not that hard. And you seem to think that if you give the mentors the finger long enough, then maybe you'll get your way. It's not going to work. Just like anyone else, we can ask for CheckUser. CheckUser is pretty foolproof. As I said, I don't get it. You guys who don't follow our rules do not have a right to be here. Everyone can edit Wikipedia, but this article is restricted to those who follow our rules. And we have backing by the arbcom, so it's not as if we're going to be overturned here. If you look at [blocks] that we have done, not a one is on anyone's opinions about NLP. Not a one. What does this say? It says that if you stay civil and don't use sockpuppets or some other method to unfairly influence the debate, then you will be ok. It's that simple, people. You guys who want to flaunt the rules can sit here and claim bias or claim that we're racist or whatever you want. We're none of those things. We've yet to block someone because of their views. We've blocked people based on what they've said or their actions. It isn't that difficult. But hey. As we've said all along, if you don't want to follow our rules, go somewhere else. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect Woohookitty, I don't believe Alice's views are representitive.  I personally have become very happy with your rules, and am coming around to the idea that your permanent presence in the NLP article may well be very beneficial.  ATB  Camridge 08:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I didn't mean to label everyone. I should have said those who refuse to follow our rules. Apologies. I changed my comments to make it clear that I meant those who refuse to follow our rules, not everyone. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just blocked another sock, . We can continue on in this fashion, but really it's pointless to bother.  · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do NOT use sockpuppets 

message: Now let's get back to discussing proposed changes... Johntex\talk 00:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New discussion heading

message: All, editing on the workshop dummy of the live page has dropped to almost zero, while discussions on the workshop talk page drone on endlessly with no resolution.  While I don't want to discourage discussion -- indeed, it's integral to dispute resolution -- I feel as if people have become too comfortable sitting in their entrenched positions instead of reaching out for true compromises where they can be had.  To that end, I and at least one of the other mentors have decided to unprotect the live article.  Everyone is free to edit, keeping in mind that the arbcom's decisions (such as requiring discussion of substantive edits and reverts ) and Wikipedia's rules will continue to be enforced. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 05:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also much excising of text, most of which was disputed and none of which has been resolved. It may be a bit much to ask that all those deletions be preserved in the live version. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 15:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Kate.  I believe it would probably be the most unconstructive way of doing things. Lets head for baby steps, and agreement (at least agreement that some of the more obvious facts are verifiable). Regards HeadleyDown 17:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next steps 

message: After reading most of this page, 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 12:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please move your comments to Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming, where discussions are ongoing. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 13:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. If this page is not watched/monitored/active anymore, maybe a notice could be added to the top? --213.191.86.35 13:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NLP Variants 

message: 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 13:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know, this page really isn't active anymore. Talk:NLP is the place to discuss things. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I don't see any reason to protect the page. Ideally, this will end up being more discussion than anything else. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me Katefan0.  HeadleyDown 16:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We can also discuss the nature of NLP advocates, and the researchers of the subject of NLP.  No, we can't.  We will be discussing the NLP article.  Period.  If, by this, you meant continuing to delve into personal motivations of editors of the article, that will stop. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Cut and paste. But try to take it a piece at a time. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Kate, I just want to remind everyone that we need to use "cut and paste (NOT copy and paste) with any text to be challenged or removed. --c 00:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Change to 2nd Paragraph 

message: Okay, folks, let me try something.
We're here to edit the article, not talk about anyone's motivations or credentials, or to determine truth based on research.
So, I'd like to invite someone to participate in a little article editing exercise with me.  I'll take on one of these at first, and if it goes well, maybe I can handle more than one at a time.  This will be first-come, first-served.  I'm going to ask one person to identify a problem with the article and suggest a solution.  I'll provide my input as mediator, and then I'll invite outside comments.  Then we'll see if we can't build toward consensus and NPOV.
So, here's the ground rules: identify one small change you want to make to the article.  Please stick to changing a passage no longer than two sentences long.  We're starting small!  Big things can come later.  Then, fill out the section below with the change you want to make.  Remember, first come, first served.  I'll ask everyone else to refrain from commenting until I've had a chance to respond and invite additional comment.
Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My attempt at refocusing 

message: :#Okay, here are some observations:
:##We really don't want the lead section to be so bogged down with footnotes and references.  "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." (WP:LEAD)  The article itself should be documented and sources cited, but the lead section shouldn't be saying anything that's not expressed in more detail (and documented) later in the article.  Is this expressed later in the article and documented?  How would you say this without the requirement of the double-footnotes of the original or the references you provided?
:##:I recognize this may run counter to what you're hearing about citations.  We do need everything backed up.  We don't need footnotes for every sentence, nor multiple footnotes in the same spot, nor references at all in the lead section since it should be summarizing the article.  Mentors, let me know if you disagree.
:##Unless I'm misunderstanding, this is a valid use of the word "predicated."  In fact, the word "predicated" is used this way in one other place in the article, and that usage is still present in the workshop version.  It's saying that this is an axiom or else a fundamental principle in NLP.  Is this not something universally agreed on by NLP practitioners?
:##Again according to WP:LEAD, the lead section "is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow."  At this point in the lead section, neither the simple sentence that is there nor your complex replacement seem clear to me.  Is it possible we could leave that point out of the lead section entirely?  The previous sentence has already talked about "the study of the structure of subjective experience."
:##Also from WP:LEAD, we want to be brief and concise, and I'm concerned about making an already long lead section even longer.  Chopping out the citations will help.  Is there a way you can propose wording this that is not much longer than the previous version?
:##Here is my proposal: "It is predicated upon the assumption that all behaviors have a rule-governed structure."  Is this adequate?
::::An alterative: "It is predicated upon the assumption that the way humans formulate language and behavior is rule-governed and highly structured." --c 04:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, based on LEAD we could probably leave this out or move it to the body of the document, see my alterative sentence. I intentionally started with a sentence that should be simple to come to consensus on. Do you think we should work on the body of the document first and then on the LEAD? --c 04:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Observations by jdavidb

message: Didn't intend to stop all other work on the article ... y'all can keep working on other spots while Comaze and I slow down and look at this one sentence.  There are other mentors, and a long article to work on.  The requests for people to wait just meant don't jump into that discussion until I announce Comaze and I are ready.
If this works well, we'll expand it, and I'm sure the other mentors will try it as well. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep going, folks 

message: :#Okay, here are some observations:
:##First of all, I do agree that blocks is a better word than impediments. One problem I have with alot of the text in this article is that it is not "plain" enough for our purposes. Wikipedia needs to be written for the general public, not for experts. Use of plain language is a good idea in articles such as this that are attempting to tackle difficult to understand (for some) concepts. So yes, I agree. Block is a good substitute for "impediments" here as they have the same general meaning and block is much more understandable to the general reader.
:##Second (and this is a problem with this article as well), we need to find a way to lessen the amount of citations. I'll take your new wording as an example. One of the links at the end of the paragraph says "Singer 1996". In fact that shows up a few times in the text. I see in the notes that there is indeed a note for a book written by Singer in 1996. I also see "Raso" in the paragraph and again there is note for it in the note section. Same with Llienfeld and Hunt. On Wikipedia, it is considered desirable to put all of the sources at the end of the paragraph. Why? Because it makes the article much more readable. So I would suggest figuring out exactly what comes from what and then citing them all at the end of the paragraph and removing the "(Singer 1999)" type references. The whole point of footnotes is to *avoid* things like "(Singer 1999)". There is just no need for it when we can link to the bottom of the article with a footnote.
:##Thirdly, where you mention the word "we", "we" must have "" around it. Why? Because otherwise it can be confusing for people who are not used to abstract concepts. Again, we are doing this for John Q. Public, not experts in the field.
:##Minor point, but I don't believe that Null Hypothesis needs to be capitalized. You are not talking about the name of a book or a program. It is simply a concept and those do not need to be capitalized. 
:##Also, just a general editing tip. You do not need to use the exact language that the source did. Again, we are trying to make this readable and sources do not always follow this convention. Example? "NLP uses the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks using imagery/sensation based rituals". Those last few words are confusing. Now you and I know that it means imagery or sensation based rituals, but I bet that the general reader will look at that and not know what it's saying. We need to make it more explicit. The plainer and more understandable we make the language, the more readers we'll have that will learn something and that's the most important thing. Keep that in mind. 
Now DaveRight, the next step is yours. Give what I said some thought and respond. I would like to see you rewrite the new wording with my suggestions and I'll let you know what I think. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, I did have more suggestions but I did not want to overload you. Eventually, the mentors want to pare down the number of citations in this article as 250+ is excessive. But that's for another time. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Observations by Woohookitty

message: :::As with the "achievement technology" therapies of Dianetics and EST, NLP participants are taught that the we have extraordinary potential and that mis-programming by past life experiences creates blocks to this potential. NLP uses the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks by primarily using the imagination in the form of rituals.  While the more clinical therapies concentrate on solving problems by focusing on the reasons 'why' the root cause of a problem exists, NLP looks at the 'hows' to provide a quick fix to a solution (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003)(Hunt 2002)(Singer 1996), [29][30][31][32].
:::I noticed wikipedia has a good article on rituals.  It makes it clearer to link them up.  There are only a couple of other actual classic "technologies of achievement" in the new age movement, so it clarifies things well to mention them.  CHeers DaveRight 02:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adjusted opening

message: Hi all.  Perhaps I could clear something up first.  Are we waiting for a mentor's comment before we comment on Dave's suggestion?  Camridge 02:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now now. We do have lives. :-D We can't always comment so fast. I might be misreading jdavidb but it sounds as if he wants one of the mentors to take a look at the proposed change and then make comments about it and then have the user who made the proposal comment back. I believe I am reading that right. So yes, you need to wait. But if you have parts you want to change, feel free to use the same format and propose the changes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, Woohookitty, that sounds like the right form.  Camridge 07:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woohookitty, I see you've commented on DaveRight's suggestions for the Overview. I see some of those are stylistic changes and better wording - not so much the content itself, which is where our disputes lie. On this very paragraph there are now 3 suggested replacements (Dave's, Camridge's, and mine)... have you (or anyone) got a suggestion for how we resolve this? I was thinking of presenting all suggestions together in order to find any common ground and can do that if you like. GregA 11:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll try this for now and see how it goes. The fact that this is article is completely unreadable is something we are going to tackle whether it's part of the dispute or not. We're here to make a good Wikipedia article and making the language plain and using non-intrusive footnote formatting is part of that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Woohookitty - I totally agree that we need to make this thing readable, as well as accurate. I'm worried that once you've worked with Camridge till it's worded well, Katefan does the same with me (on the same paragraph - she just posted that she's started), and someone works with Dave - that then when we start to amalgamate all 3 to get some consensus we'll be repeating the same work (hopefully more quickly of course). Just not sure of the plan. GregA 13:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. The idea, though, is to teach people how to write good Wikipedia articles first and then we can get the disputes worked out. We're teachers first, mediators second. I think that's our intended role. Even if people still disagree, at least (hopefully) the people involved will have a better idea of what Wikipedia is about and how things work around here, which I think has been the main problem in the past. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification on the rules of "Proposed changes" 

message: ::Well, my initial impressions on changing this first sentence is that attempting to use the word "pseudoscience" is inevitably loaded.  Just as our article (rightly) doesn't describe Adolf Hitler as a "dictator," it nevertheless provides enough supporting documentation that readers are able to come to that conclusion on their own.  I suggest the same approach with this article.  We may say that its critics describe it as pseudoscientific, but it is not within WP:NPOV for us as an encyclopedia to take that definitive position.  So I agree with your premise, at least, that pseudoscience needs to be removed as such a definitive descriptor.  
::However, I think that something is lost in your new description, because it still fails to say what NLP is (i.e. rituals for programming the mind).  I also dislike the word "development," what you're getting at here is "self-help," and I don't think there's anything derogatory in using plainer language.  Also, we don't need references in the introduction.  Everything that is said in the introduction should be a thumbnail of what readers should expect to read in more elaboration going forward -- references can be provided as supporting documentation when those points are made and concepts are expounded on later in the article. I'm on the fence as to whether it's appropriate to throw Scientology and EST in there without any context.
::Given those two thoughts, how would you propose to modify your language in response? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 20:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by Katefan0

message: ::Just a note; I think the use of "quasi-" tends to make the sentence sound awkward.  Can you modify this to sound slightly better?  Ral315 (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (Short) Response by Ral315

message: I think it's clear that some NLP similarities to Scientology and the like is a genuine perspective. In the below, I've taken every single comparison to Scientology/Dianetics/Landmark/EST (excluding that already in "cult" sections) and put them in one section (I haven't added other stuff, which clearly would exist). This is not my belief, this is pulling together the stuff that Comaze removed and merging it into a potential "section", so that what he's moved can be seen (all is there, though it includes some obvious restructuring).
::Existing merged together: Subheading: Associations with Scientology, EST, and other New Age groups 
::NLP is largely a New Age development, and is often promoted in combination with other related new age developments. NLP is often criticised as being a dubious new age therapy. 
::This is partly due to related New Age notions that were common at the time of development - by the late 1960s, self-help organizations such as EST, Dianetics, and Scientology had become financially successful. The Esalen human potential seminars in California began to attract people, such as the therapist and dianetics proponent Fritz Perls , as well as Gregory Bateson, Virginia Satir, and Milton H. Erickson.
::Scientology, rebirthing and other alternative therapies teach the concept that the human mind can be programmed, and that mis-programming by negative input is the norm. This is compared to NLP's principles (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003), as is the classic New Age concept of "clearing" these blocks (Singer 1996). Some believe that NLP shares Dianetic's subconscious engram concept ,  and promotes popular new age myths such as unlimited potential, past life regression, and the use marketing/recruitment models similar to that of Dianetics (Scientology) and other cults .
::Some have classed NLP as a pseudoscientific self help development  , in the same mold as EST (Landmark Forum) and Dianetics(Scientology). Bandler's legal actions have been compared to the vexatious litigation and restriction in freedom of speech of cults such as Scientology . The German educational ministry banned the use of NLP in education due to its close similarity to Scientology . Some say NLP is often promoted as large group seminars, similar to or in combination with Landmark Forum seminars .
::(no responses or counter arguments at this time - perhaps for some issues, if the article describes the issue earlier (eg Bandler's legal actions) then no response would be required, the reader could decide for themselves?)
I believe that Comaze's intent was purely to discuss one simple issue - whether it's valid to continually imply association: eg: "As with the alternative self development therapies of Dianetics and EST (Raso 1994)(Lilienfeld 2003)(Hunt 2002) NLP participants are taught that...". (Comaze, tell me if I'm wrong). However, some of the complaints from other editors were that extracting individual phrases made it impossible for them to comment on the changes. I've now joined those phrases with their surrounding information, so we can comment on them in the discussion area.
Personally, I feel that it deserves its own section (ie grouped together as a series of claims, with counter argument where relevant, rather than seeded throughout the article). This will overlap to some degree with the sections already on "Cult Characteristics", the section "New Age", or the section "New Age and Cult Applications". Perhaps some of these should merge. GregA 23:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello GregA.  It would help greatly if you would add the titles of the sections they came from on each part, then we could talk about where each came from, and why they should be in those different sections.  As it is, it is very confusing. There were valid reasons for keeping them  for adding information to those particlular sections as we did a great deal of work on them under the mediation of VoiceOfAll. Regards  HeadleyDown 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello GregA.  VoiceOfAll requested for us to brevify the article, and in doing so we merged sentences.  The view that NLP is promoted with tai chi Meditation and Dianetics, is a very widely held view. We can replace the extra sources to those views and attribute them properly of course.  Regards HeadleyDown 03:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged Texts (on Scientology/Dianetics/Landmark/engrams)

message: ===NLP and Theory===
Many NLP proponents state that NLP is not theory-oriented, and Bandler states that he does not "do theory" . Instead, the stated goals of NLP are to model effective patterns "in the field", to learn what someone is actually doing in practice (internally and externally) that works, and how they do it, rather than deriving behaviors from a theory or obtaining their motivations for doing them. However, NLP proponents do make hypotheses and propose armchair theories . For example, NLP assumes that all human behavior is neurological, and all human behavior is based on the 5 senses, rather than attitudes, reason, emotions, mind, morals or ego .
;Reason for change--'c' 09:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Please provide citation details for Hunt 2003 so this can be checked. --'c' 09:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested change [[User:HeadleyDown|HeadleyDown]] 12:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

message: Many NLP proponents state that NLP is not theory-oriented, and Bandler states that he does not "do theory" . Instead, the stated goals of NLP are to model effective patterns "in the field", to learn what someone is actually doing in practice (internally and externally) that works, and how they do it, rather than deriving behaviors from a theory or obtaining their motivations for doing them. However, NLP proponents do make hypotheses and propose armchair theories . For example, NLP assumes that all human behavior is neurological, and all human behavior is based on the 5 senses, rather than attitudes, reason, emotions, mind, morals or ego .
;Reason for change--'c' 09:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP and Theory

message: :*Please provide citation details for Hunt 2003 so this can be checked. --'c' 09:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of change to "NLP and Theory" 

message: If there are no objections, let's close and archive "12.1 Discussion of URLs moved". ---=-C-=- 05:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he's looking to close the URL section, not the Sociological view section. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tech mistake!  The highlighting comes up green on the following section when comparing edits.  HeadleyDown 07:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok. I'll see if anyone else has any objections to archiving this section. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Close and Archive

message: Various editors in this discussion have been referencing Hunt (2003,2003) - can we get a citation so we can do a fact and ref check?  06:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference check - Hunt (2002,2003) 

message: Tye states that NLP can be explained with reference to the "psycho shaman effect.": a combination of cognitive dissonance, placebo effect and therapist charisma.  Beyerstein states that NLP is a pseudoscientific fringe therapy, and explains that bogus therapies can be explained by the placebo effect, social pressure, superficial symptomatic rather than core treatment, and overestimating some apparent successes while ignoring, downplaying, or explaining away failures [130]."  In addition, Beyerstein states that " Unless a ritual, technique, drug, or surgical procedure can be shown to have met logical and evidential requirements of safety and effectiveness, it is ethically questionable to offer it to the public, except on an admittedly experimental basis -- especially if money is to change hands. 
(from Tye, M.J.C (1994). Neurolinguistic programming: Magic or myth? Journal of Accelerative Learning and Teaching, 19, 309-342.)
(Neurolinguistic Programing and psychological quakery. San Francisco Examiner. Sept 7 2000 Rosenfelt, page 8)
Beyerstein. B.L. (1997) Why Bogus Therapies Seem to Work. Skeptical Inquirer magazine. September/October 1997
Beyerstein, Barry M.D.; Beyerstein B (1999). Social and Judgemental Biases that Make Inert Treatments Seem to Work. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 3(2), 17-35. http://hcrc.org/contrib/beyerst/inert.html
ATB.  Camridge 04:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested change to Beyerstein/Tye etc

message: * Dryden. W. 2001 Reason to Change: Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT) Brunner-Routledge 0415229804
===Discussion of reference: Dryden (2001)===
As part of a fact and reference check I've removed the above reference (Dryden) does not mention NLP at all.--'c' 10:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that it has been moved, we need to check it for wikipedia standards, then if we reach consensus we can submit it to the mentors for approval, then they can reinsert it. I appologies for the large text moves - I have a limited amount time available. Let's see if we can speed up this entire process. --'c' 12:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh thanks for that Camridge.  I hadn't seen that other source.  Lets see if the others think its clear enough to reinstate it.  Regards HeadleyDown 11:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this all checks out according to my research.  Perhaps someone else could verify this one.  HeadleyDown 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody has found this article incorrect, then I suggest we move forward to reinstating it into the article, with the additional Dobson reference to back it up.  HeadleyDown 12:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this does not meet wikipedia standards for verifiability.  Quoting an opinion stated in a book does not meet the minimum requirements for a logical, evidence-based argument.  On what grounds (i.e. evidence) are these statements made? ---=-C-=- 13:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  Its a finding based upon empirical research.  Both references (Dobson and Dryden) show liberal supporting evidence in reference form.  There are too many references within both books to post here, and they include many references that are in the article already.  Both sources are verifiable.  They agree with many other authors that are present in the article.  It is an existing view based upon the results of empirical testing. Would anyone else like to check that my statements are correct?  HeadleyDown 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Comaze.  I'm really glad you asked.  Dobson and Dryden are both quoting from reviews of empirical researchers such as Ellis and Yager and many more researchers I have never heard of before who have written many books and papers on ineffective therapies.  So your enquiry has led to another rich source of research on NLP that I had not ever encountered before.  Thats really going to make things a lot clearer.  Thanks much.  Bookmain 04:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved reference (Dryden) 

message: As part of a fact and reference check I've removed the above reference (Dryden) does not mention NLP at all.--'c' 10:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that it has been moved, we need to check it for wikipedia standards, then if we reach consensus we can submit it to the mentors for approval, then they can reinsert it. I appologies for the large text moves - I have a limited amount time available. Let's see if we can speed up this entire process. --'c' 12:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh thanks for that Camridge.  I hadn't seen that other source.  Lets see if the others think its clear enough to reinstate it.  Regards HeadleyDown 11:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this all checks out according to my research.  Perhaps someone else could verify this one.  HeadleyDown 02:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody has found this article incorrect, then I suggest we move forward to reinstating it into the article, with the additional Dobson reference to back it up.  HeadleyDown 12:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, this does not meet wikipedia standards for verifiability.  Quoting an opinion stated in a book does not meet the minimum requirements for a logical, evidence-based argument.  On what grounds (i.e. evidence) are these statements made? ---=-C-=- 13:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  Its a finding based upon empirical research.  Both references (Dobson and Dryden) show liberal supporting evidence in reference form.  There are too many references within both books to post here, and they include many references that are in the article already.  Both sources are verifiable.  They agree with many other authors that are present in the article.  It is an existing view based upon the results of empirical testing. Would anyone else like to check that my statements are correct?  HeadleyDown 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Comaze.  I'm really glad you asked.  Dobson and Dryden are both quoting from reviews of empirical researchers such as Ellis and Yager and many more researchers I have never heard of before who have written many books and papers on ineffective therapies.  So your enquiry has led to another rich source of research on NLP that I had not ever encountered before.  Thats really going to make things a lot clearer.  Thanks much.  Bookmain 04:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of reference: Dryden (2001)

message: This information needs replacing into the article. As we have discovered, its far too big to discuss in one chunk.  HeadleyDown 13:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My challenge is that these reference are unverifiable. Based on you suggestion I'lll move it into two chunks. --'c' 22:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Comaze.  The verifiability article on Wikipedia policy only states that English language sources are preferable.   With Babelfish, most European texts can be easily translated.  In addition to this, most of the foreign language sources are verifiable though the cross-referencing with other English texts.  The present article was actually made brief from a very large version, and the views presented are the often views of many more experts than are cited.  Regards HeadleyDown 18:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC (foreign language references) 

message: ;Text moved (Winkin)
*"experts such as Winkin"
*"and anthropologists such as Winkin  consider such promotion to be intellectually fraudulent . Furthermore, some critics assert that NLP's association with science is as distant as astrology's association to astronomy" 
*"NLP is in the margins of contemporary obscurantism ."
*and a destructive or amoral pseudoscientific psychocult (
;References
*Bördlein, Christoph (2001). Das "Neurolinguistische Programmieren" (NLP) - Hochwirksame Techniken oder haltlose Behauptungen? Schulheft, 103 , 117-129.
* Helisch. M (2004)  Veranstaltung:- Gesellschaftliche Funktion, Entwicklung und Sozialisation von Emotionen Seitenzahl: 39 Issue: 1
* Winkin Y 1990 Eléments pour un procès de la P.N.L. , MédiAnalyses, no. 7, septembre, 1990, pp. 43-50.
*Sommers 
;Reason for move
*Verifiability:  there are plenty of journal articles and books on NLP written in English so there is no real need to rely on foreign language references. --'c' 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heap is already cited in the article - let's discuss it in a different thread. Same with Hunt and Heelas. Do you have some specific objections to these references being deleted? --'c' 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection to you deleting these references are that they represent a non-angloamerican view.  According to NPOV policy, the non-angloamerican view is not to be deleted.  As far as foreign language is concerned, well, its not exactly Chinese is it!  Simple translation sites are available for free on the web.  And editors here have a good grasp of foreign languages already. I would like to hear the mentors/mediator's view on this.  ATB. Camridge 04:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Text moved by Comaze (Bordlein/Winkin/Helisch/Sommers)

message: The view that NLP is intellectually fraudulent, is also that of Heap 1991. The view that NLP is a kind of pseudoscience, that uses occult and astrology are also that of sociologists who study new religions (Hunt 2002, Heelas 1996, amongst others. Regards HeadleyDown 19:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heap is already cited in the article - let's discuss it in a different thread. Same with Hunt and Heelas. Do you have some specific objections to these references being deleted? --'c' 22:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My objection to you deleting these references are that they represent a non-angloamerican view.  According to NPOV policy, the non-angloamerican view is not to be deleted.  As far as foreign language is concerned, well, its not exactly Chinese is it!  Simple translation sites are available for free on the web.  And editors here have a good grasp of foreign languages already. I would like to hear the mentors/mediator's view on this.  ATB. Camridge 04:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of (Bordlein/Winkin/Helisch/Sommers) 

message: Can someone assist me in properly formatting the notes and references section  (eg. authors=, publisher=, page=, etc.). We could also separate book citations from peer-reviewed journals. There are still many refs to be sorted and check - while you are checking references please add page numbers to the notes and references section so we (and future wikipedians) can easily verify the facts. ---=-C-=- 04:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first good section added to this discussion page in ages. Thank you Comaze. We need to fix the article, not go on long off tangent discussions about NLP. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  Your formatting is making it extremely difficult to search the page for references.  You can click on a number in the article and it sometimes takes you to the right place, but you can't go the other way round.  Is there a way of fixing this particularly annoying problem? I suggest that we convert all references back to how they were before - clearly written within the text without the technologically flawed links.  HeadleyDown 13:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Comaze.  You deleted the Crabtree ref/link from this discussion and the article without any agreement, or any permission to do so.  I don't believe any other editor here would take it upon themself to do so.  Crabtree is not a personal website as you claimed.  It is a UK company with expertise in NLP and the occult. It would help matters if you reinstated the ref to the article notes.  The information therein requries clarification in several parts of the article.  Regards HeadleyDown 03:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello again Comaze.  Perhaps a more pressing problem is to verify the changes to the objections you have made in this discussion page.  A lot of those have been answered, and all it takes is a search of the literature in order to verify them as correct.  HeadleyDown 13:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish to state that this "task" of Comaze's (ref formatting) is way down on the list of priorities.  Firstly it requires that we scrutinise his every move, and more importantly, he has made a lot of objections to the literature, and his objections have been promptly answered.  I have verified those responses myself and they are all correct according to the literature.  If Comaze or GregA do not want to try to verify those responses, then I suggest the text moves be reinstated according to my verification.  This would reduce load, and move the discussion forward. Good day. JPLogan 03:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Ref formatting is not a priority.  In fact searching the page will be made far easier by converting the refs back to names stated in the article.  Editors have been patiently waiting and refraining from making further text moves into the article until Comaze's have been verified and replaced. Regards  HeadleyDown 03:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format references 

message: Hello Comaze.  You seem to be making many undiscussed changes to the article.  Please discuss them first.  
We will start with this one:  "based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors (Druckman and Swets 1988)."  You removed it from the pseudoscience section without discussion. Reinstate it, then discuss.  I suggest that you don't make a text move as you already have too many here for people to reasonably tolerate.  Lets keep to the spirit of the workshop please.
If you want to dispute the Crabtree ref, then bring it back to Wikipedia and discuss it here also.  DaveRight 04:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he needs to make whatever moves he wants and then put them here, not the other way around. I do agree though that he needs to open up some sort of discussion here when he makes changes. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Woohookitty.  It would have been great to have your guidance 8 months ago.  I suggest that though this discussion is necessary, there are many other things that require progress as a priority.  For example, as Dave stated above, there were changes made to Comaze's text moves weeks ago, and they have yet to be verified.  It would be very easy to clear those up and move forward.  ATB.  Camridge 05:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't, admittedly, have time to follow everything going on here at the moment - but any time someone makes a specific request working on a specific change I'll make the time. You say there are some things that are easy to clear up - what are you talking about, and how would you clear it up? Greg 05:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello GregA.  I will remind you again.  Comaze made many text moves, and a lot of them have been adjusted.  They have also been verified by other editors.  If you, Comaze, or anyone else do not want to run a check on them, I suggest they be reinstated.  They have been in their adjusted state for quite a while, and you seem to be far more interested in other things.  ATB. Camridge 06:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "In relation to current understanding of neurology and perception, NLP is in error (Bertelsen, 1987), and instead of being grounded in contemporary, scientifically derived neurological theory, NLP is based on outdated metaphors of brain functioning and is laced with numerous factual errors (Druckman and Swets 1988)."
*I have not removed or changed any text attributed to Crabtree. ---=-C-=- 05:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Generally, stylistic type edits would not need to be discussed unless someone objects in which case they can always bring it to our attention. As long as nothing attributed is removed, it's ok. We want to encourage attempts to make the article less ugly. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, a little more respect for discussion would be constructive, and if we could focus on those verifications, it would be much appreciated.  HeadleyDown 10:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of Comaze's deletions from the article

message: Hi guys
Discussions are improving here.  I wish to prompt a further raising of standards to a higher level.  Discussion of issues and additions to the article is important, and sometimes keeping the language of discussion neutral is extremely difficult (mia culpa).  However, I suggest that more effort/patience be applied to this end.  
NLP is profoundly New Age-spiritual, and there will be believers frequenting this article for ever.  So we need to keep things as unconfrontational as possible.  
Practically speaking, I suggest that if editors wish to present a particular view, do so using some kind of quote from the literature.  There is plenty of it available in the article, and a vast amount in the library and web.  Make neutral statements, and place the quote in brackets or inverted commas, preferably with an authority source attached.  
Also, please take time in anwsering objections.  Even where you are accurate and correct, a pingpong discussion can be unconstructive.  I suggest waiting at least an hour before providing solutions objections.  
I'm sure there are many more ways of improving discussion long term. I trust editors will be able to move forward constructively. Bookmain 08:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestions Bookmain.  I'll endevour to persevere with constructive discussion.  ATB.  Camridge 08:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes!  Well done Bookmain.  Good suggestions.  Regards HeadleyDown 10:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress: Neutral Tone Recommendations for Discussion