Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Long-term abuser

message: Happy new year. After taking another good look at the NPOV sections and tutorial again it seems pretty clear that certain views have persistently been suppressed  – mostly on the critical side so as to marginalize criticism. See Information Suppression on the NPOV Tutorial. Its not sufficient to simply say that there is a controversy. The controversy has to be clearly stated so the reader knows what its about. This includes the lead section which is supposed to be a standalone summary of the main article. I'll present a fairly in depth account of the actual controversy just for the sake of collaboration. It can be made concise - but should be kept as clear as possible as per WP lead section - NPOV presentation.
NLP is based upon how the brain works(neuro), on how language works (linguistic), and how the mind can be programmed(programming). 
Opposing view
NLP is in error concerning neurology (neuro), is not based upon sound linguistics, and it cannot be used to program anyone (its not useful for the purposes of influence according to NRC research). NLP is a pseudoscientific (Drenth/Devilly) Because NLP proponents make changeable claims and NLP is untestable Because it failed tests and continues to be promoted in the guise of science
NLP is powerful for self development and makes you more successful; is powerful for therapy; is powerful for management; Because testimonials say so. 
 
Opposing view. 
NLP should not be adopted by individuals or bodies because it spreads misconceptions about how the brain works (grossly misleading) (Lilienfeld/Beyerstein/Eisner). NLP is potentially harmful as a therapy or self therapy (can cause mental problems (guilt) and can lead others to forgo proper therapy). The testimonials may sound convincing except that according to controlled testing NLP is not effective for management. 
NLP is powerful because it uses models derived from brilliant people. Because NLP developers say so. 
opposing view:
It is unethical for any educational or psychological intervention to be promoted without proper validation and according to Beyerstein NLP has failed to provide such validation.
I suggest that the controversies be properly presented now. The proponent view should be presented as nicely as possible - and the critic view should be presented as clearly as possible just as it says in NPOV policy and tutorial. Represent each view completely and clearly. No supression of views or marginalization of criticism. AlanBarnet 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A balanced lead section 

message: :Hi Fainites. You missed a bit. Salerno says - NLP turns up in many places inside and outside of SHAM. A straight quote will be fine. Nice and brief!AlanBarnet 02:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - to make the view more concise and reduce redundancy its best to place the Salerno view together with other related views. The issue is that NLP as a self help system presents "phantom" illnesses that NLP is supposed to cure. This is also the view of Devilly 2005. A brief line of two with the supporting sources of Salerno and Devilly (and perhaps Singer) on this particular view will do fine. AlanBarnet 03:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manipulation 

message: Hi all. After presenting the beginnings of a concise lead section and suggestions for collaboration as per NPOV and lead section recommendations – all that’s come back so far is deletion with no discussion from anyone.  This has been happening on a regular basis and confirms very much what both admin and cleanup taskforce have been complaining about. For example: Suppression of information in the lead section by:
 
,
,  
,,
Here are some main points that will help direct constructive editing – 
*Admin assessment says there is promotional obscuring of views –  and cleanup taskforce says the article is full of redundancy and debate – 
*WP policy on suppression of information states “It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”
*Made concise but not obscured:  The NLP proponent side should be presented well and concisely (summarized well) and the criticisms should also be summarized well and concisely and should not be marginalized
*Concise does not mean minimized so much that the view is obscured from the lead or body of the article.  (the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”)
*Presenting the proponent view does not entail persistently removing or obscuring the views of critics. 
*Presenting the proponent view should not entail jamming the article up with jargon - speculation – argument – or editorializing in order to obscure critical views.
Moving forward with a reasonable adherence to NPOV policies will help solve problems with this article. Discussion is welcome. AlanBarnet 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific solutions for the lead section

message: Please be on the lookout to fix up distortions put into the article by Long Term Abuser HeadleyBarnet. Brown is generally quite supportive for the effectiveness of NLP. In picking out a hens tooth from the book AlanBarnet inserted a major distortion of Brown's overall opinion. Sure, it's technically true that Brown said that, but you'd have to desperately want to distort the truth to insert that quote as a representative citation from the book. The sooner this sock is banned the better. 202.67.114.30 14:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi user 202.67.114.30.  I believe I’m being very reasonable here.  I added the stated view of Brown using a concise conclusive statement of his. It doesn’t matter at all to me how his view is presented as long as its accurate and fits NPOV policy.  I presented his view that involves his particular understanding of scientific verification.  You removed it and replaced it with some broken and vague lines about “these signals”.  Clearly Brown has a good idea of the pseudoscientific or inconsistent nature of NLP. He says he’s using some unspecified bits of it for his show but “there is really no substantial support for the specific claims that NLP makes and much of it can be dismissed as vacuous nonsense".   There’s nothing “bent” or “distorted” about the line I added. Its the straightest line in the passage - including page number and date. If you want to talk about representing the line in a different way or adding extra material then the Wikipedia recommendation is to make the appropriate change or engage in civil discussion. I’m well reassured by admin that I’m working constructively using NPOV policy to present all views properly – engaging in discussion – encouraging collaboration – actively removing undue argumentation –vocally discouraging sockpuppeting of any sort – and actively notifying admin of any conflict of interest in NLP promotion. I realize some don’t seem too keen on the idea – but I’ll continue with civil and constructive NPOV improvement and maintenance nevertheless. I believe the situation has a lot of potential for improvement. Theres a lot more work to do to present controversies properly though   . AlanBarnet 06:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Long Term Abuser HeadleyDown initially acts as the "sweet voice of a reasonable editor", claiming to have a scientific or neutral interest, seeking minor improvements, POV fixes, balance, or a legitimate "scientific/neutral" viewpoint in an otherwise not-bad article. However in practice long-term he is a virulent and destructive subtle POV warrior who ignores bona fide research (sometimes calling it "promotion") and gradually over time using multiple socks forces a massive POV slant until articles end up attacking their own subjects, or twisted to a very one-sided POV, rather than explaining them." From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/HeadleyDown Doc Pato 16:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent distortion 

message: Hi all. I removed these words to avoid (Howevers) because they seem to make the passages argumentative. Cleanup taskforce has expressed a need to remove undue debate. They were both restored and insisted upon by user 58.178.186.213  and user Comaze . The word seems to me to be unecessary. Removing the word doesn't seem to harm any of the presentation at all and only serves to make it more neutral. If they are quotes - then quotation marks should be added. If not - they simply serve to make the article more like a debate. I'm open to civil discussions and suggestions on this as always. AlanBarnet 06:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if there's not going to be discussion on this point then I guess there's nothing to say. I'll remove the argumentative words again. AlanBarnet 03:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoiding undue debate

message: Why is Carbonell and Figley relevant? Its and inconclusive study with no particular view on NLP. It seems to just be stuffing. Any idea why its in the article? AlanBarnet 03:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Carbonell and Figley

message: Hi again. Here is an open discussion on how best to approach presenting all views concisely and to the best of each view according to NPOV policies. Clearly this will need to take into account all the latest from Cleanuptaskforce and obviously must be done within NPOV policies.
*Firstly I think clear statements on describing NLP will be useful. Making them concise and readable are important.
*Getting all the related views together will be helpful also.
*We need to determine what NLP authors view actually is on NLP
*We need to determine the other views and group them according to the issue (eg science, psychotherapy, HRM,....)
Civil discussion is encouraged. AlanBarnet 08:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inviting discussion: Presenting all relevant views concisely and to the best of each 

message: Hi again. Here is an open discussion on how best to approach presenting all views concisely and to the best of each view according to NPOV policies. Clearly this will need to take into account all the latest from Cleanuptaskforce and obviously must be done within NPOV policies. 
*Firstly I think clear statements on describing NLP will be useful. Making them concise and readable are important.
*Getting all the related views together will be helpful also. 
*We need to determine what NLP authors view actually is on NLP
*We need to determine the other views and group them according to the issue (eg science, psychotherapy, HRM,....)
Civil discussion is encouraged. AlanBarnet 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inviting discussion: Presenting all relevant views concisely and to the best of each

message: Requesting a concise and useful point to this piece of unsourced debate and commentary 
Hi all. I noticed this very large piece of commentary has been added to the article:
"The weakness of Langone's argument is that he makes various invalid assumptions. For example:
The way in which groups and individuals use various NLP techniques does not provide a valid link between NLP and any other person or group, any more than the fact that a hammer can be used to attack and even kill someone means that everyone who owns a hammer is a (potential) murder. Moreover Langone [i]appears[/i] to ignore the fact that many of the most aggressive and infamous cult techniques were already in widespread use in the 1960s and earlier - before NLP came into existence.
More specifically, Langone ignores the fact that the term [i]illusion[/i] is used differently in TM and in Scientology or est (the first being based on conventional Hindu beliefs, the second being the product of a sci-fi-type account of the universe devised by L. Ron Hubbard in the early 1950s). NLP is different again in that it does not claim that the pecieved world is an illusion at all. It says that our perceptions are constrained by our individual physiology and experience and that therefore the [i]accuracy[/i] of our perceptions is irrevocably subjective at a person-by-person level.
By the same token, at no point in authentic NLP literature is there any claim that "your mind is your enemy", especially not in the sense that the phrase is used in TM or in Scientology or est (which are respectively derived from the sources mentioned above) and consequently does not attempt to teach people "techniques for escaping from the mind's grasp". On the contrary, authentic NLP is designed to teach people how to understand and work more effectively within the restraints of subjectivity. In this respect the NLP viewpoint is closer (though NOT the same as) to that of the school of philosophy known as Logical Positivism than TM, Scientology or est (the latter being a variation on Scientology."
I'm not saying that there is absolutely no view within this large piece of commentary. What we need to do is try to identify if this is actually a view or fact - and to present it if it exists - in a concise way. Right now it just looks like an unsourced argument or debate. What are we going to do with it? AlanBarnet 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Langone

message: Hi all. As per ANI I have presented the lead section with a proper concise account of the science and critical views . If you feel it does not quite capture all of the critical views then discuss here. Thanks AlanBarnet 04:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As per ANI - concise lead section that summarizes the controversies well

message: Hi again. It was deleted before but here is the link to suppression of information policy . I'm sure admin will be happy if this is discussed and applied to the article properly. Feel free to discuss below. AlanBarnet 04:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on Suppression of Information policy

message: ::Hi Comaze. The ACS article is not encyclopedic and certainly doesn't comply with NPOV policy or Suppression of Information policy - "It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview. I think the structure may be appropriate though. AlanBarnet 02:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 58.178.199.92. I encourage you to be calm. You have no authority to remove my discussion from this talkpage. There have been no blocks from admin and I have repeatedly requested for admin to comment if I am doing anything that is not constructive. No complaints have been forthcoming. I've added your action to the ANI article again as you don't seem to have a userpage. Respond there if you wish. My main objective is to calmly discuss the points of suppression of information directive that is required to fulfill NPOV policy. Discussing that point will be beneficial for all editors who want to see a good article - and will be especially helpful for the reader. AlanBarnet 08:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concepts and methods section can be well summarized with reference to the research conducted on NLP - using the more reliable sources. That way we don't have to deal with all the vagueness and jargon that NLP authors use. AlanBarnet 07:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite indicated

message: Hi all. I added this to the ANI noticeboard just in case it gets dismissed or deleted here. Further to outside/authority assessments from the ANI and Cleanuptaskforce: Again here is a back to basics solution: The NPOV tutorial: .
*The suggestion from ANI is that there tends to be too much promotional obscuring of science views. 
*The Cleanup taskforce looks at this from the view that editors are putting criticism diffusively all over the place and then defending it as if it is some sort of debate – thus obscuring lots of views and never really getting round to saying what NLP is or does.
*Writing what NLP is should be done in as neutral language as possible without adding any pro or con argument directly to it. Straight reporting of what NLP is and does on terms that a reader will understand – without promotional language – without confounding jargon – and without any unattributed promotional claims such as “Modeling' another person can effect belief and behavior changes to improve functioning” or defensive statements such as “Neuro-linguistic Programming is an eclectic field, and”….  Sentences should be written in neutral language with proper attributions of who says what (eg scientist (name date) says…. or NLP author (name date) says….. 
*Prioritize information according to the most reliable sources. Prioritizing will help reduce the overload and help editors in choosing what to include or exclude and to determine weight. We need to look at how the most reliable sources describe what NLP is and does - and what NLP proponents do with NLP specifically.  The most concise and clear descriptions will make the article encyclopedic and accessible to the reader.  
*Regarding controversies: The NPOV solution is to summarize each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability” .  This can be done throughout – or if it disturbs flow (which right now it seems to) – it can be confined into sections. 
*We can practically negotiate weight and neutrality using the evidence we have .  Part of the reason for problems with the article is that too much evidence has been added to the article through exessive daily edits - when it should have just been placed in the talk page and properly discussed before summarizing each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability”.  
*There has been a problem with un-neutral language in the article at times (for example - argumentative howevers and nonsequiturs).  Again – the NPOV tutorial and WP words to avoid are useful guides 
So – feel free to discuss any of these points. Constructive suggestions are welcome. AlanBarnet 08:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tutorial applied to NLP article 

message: ::The solution here I believe - is to summarized the view as best as if to the best of the proponents ability. So a simple summary of NLP's implication in cults will suffice. Probably no more than a sentence or two to qualify the relevant view that NLP is akin to a cult or has cult status and so on. AlanBarnet 07:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppets/Cults

message: Hi 58.178.199.92 and Fainites. I encourage you to be calm and to stop throwing accusations. You could instead be constructive and accept NPOV policy and the edits of those who do not hold your worldview. You have no authority to remove my discussion from this talkpage. There have been no blocks from admin and I have repeatedly requested for admin to comment if I am doing anything that is not constructive.  No complaints have been forthcoming. I've added your action to the ANI article again as you don't seem to have a userpage. Respond there if you wish. My main objective is to calmly discuss the points of suppression of information directive that is required to fulfill NPOV policy. Discussing that point will be beneficial for all editors who want to see a good article - and will be especially helpful for the reader.
I added this to the ANI noticeboard just in case it gets dismissed or deleted here. Further to outside/authority assessments from the ANI and Cleanuptaskforce: Again here is a back to basics solution: The NPOV tutorial: .
*The suggestion from ANI is that there tends to be too much promotional obscuring of science views. 
*The Cleanup taskforce looks at this from the view that editors are putting criticism diffusively all over the place and then defending it as if it is some sort of debate – thus obscuring lots of views and never really getting round to saying what NLP is or does.
*Writing what NLP is should be done in as neutral language as possible without adding any pro or con argument directly to it. Straight reporting of what NLP is and does on terms that a reader will understand – without promotional language – without confounding jargon – and without any unattributed promotional claims such as “Modeling' another person can effect belief and behavior changes to improve functioning” or defensive statements such as “Neuro-linguistic Programming is an eclectic field, and”….  Sentences should be written in neutral language with proper attributions of who says what (eg scientist (name date) says…. or NLP author (name date) says….. 
*Prioritize information according to the most reliable sources. Prioritizing will help reduce the overload and help editors in choosing what to include or exclude and to determine weight. We need to look at how the most reliable sources describe what NLP is and does - and what NLP proponents do with NLP specifically.  The most concise and clear descriptions will make the article encyclopedic and accessible to the reader.  
*Regarding controversies: The NPOV solution is to summarize each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability” .  This can be done throughout – or if it disturbs flow (which right now it seems to) – it can be confined into sections. 
*We can practically negotiate weight and neutrality using the evidence we have .  Part of the reason for problems with the article is that too much evidence has been added to the article through exessive daily edits - when it should have just been placed in the talk page and properly discussed before summarizing each view “as if by its proponents to their best ability”.  
*There has been a problem with un-neutral language in the article at times (for example - argumentative howevers and nonsequiturs).  Again – the NPOV tutorial and WP words to avoid are useful guides 
So – feel free to discuss any of these points. Constructive suggestions are welcome. AlanBarnet 08:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still doesn't deal with Cleanup taskforce suggestion to put the history later on. Whats needed more than anything is a clear concise statement of what NLP is or does that a reader can understand. AlanBarnet 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tutorial applied to NLP article

message: Hi all.  There still seems to me to be a clear reluctance to comply with Cleanuptaskforce recommendations. Instead of moving the history section away from the opening - editors are trying to fasten it there instead of making a clear statement of what NLP is or does. Mixing NLP concepts up with history does not help. So far nobody has provided any evidence of any part of NLP being discarded over the last 30 years.  
Also there is clearly selective editing going on. Its already been explained that the Sharpley conclusion is conclusive and here is his conclusion:
"There are conclusive data from the research on NLP, and the conclusion is that the principles and procedures of NLP have failed to be supported by those data. On the other hand, Einspruch and Forman (1985) implied that NLP is far more complex than presumed by researchers, and thus, the data are not true evaluations of NLP. Perhaps this is so, and perhaps NLP procedures are not amenable to research evaluation. This does not necessarily reduce NLP to worthlessness for counseling practice. Rather it puts it in the same category as psychoanalysis, that is, with principles not easily demonstrated in laboratory settings but, nevertheless, strongly supported by clinicians in the field. Not every therapy has to undergo the rigorous testing that is characteristic of the more behavioural approaches to counseling to be of use to the therapeutic community, but failure to produce data that support a particular theory from controlled studies does relegate that theory to questionable status in terms of professional accountability."
Once again the current Sharpley 87 information has the beginning of the paragraph missing and the end missing (removed by user 58.178.156.249   who also removed the view of Eisner on the common view that NLP makes misleading claims). Removing the last sentence of the paragraph is clearly selective editing and is not at all allowed according to NPOV writing.  
I'm not suggesting adding all of Sharpleys comments to the research reviews section. The reader should not have to wade through lots of research reviews just to hear the conclusive view of scientists who tend to agree each other. It can be summarized easily especially as so many of them hold the same view (NLP failed controlled studies. The chronological format is ok - but it can be easily pared down with a succinct statement (preferably quoted) under the title. Right now it looks like conclusions are being obscured. I urge civil discussion on getting views summarized as if by the proponents to their best ability. Concise and encyclopedic straight reporting. AlanBarnet 10:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summarizing as if by the proponents to their best ability

message: Hello user 210.50.223.207/ 211.27.105.172/58.179.187.226. Whenever corrections are made in order to remove argumentative phrasing from the article you revert them ;eg. Your actions seem to me to be highly unconstructive. We've already had complaints from Cleanup taskforce about unrestricted debate. It does not help when you persistently restore biased writing. Those edits I made comply with WP words to avoid recommendations. It doesn't matter how many times you call me a troll or a banned sockpuppet - your actions are still against NPOV recommendations. This has already been put to admin on ANI and the result is clear. They don't think I'm sockpuppeting and they are not going to block me. There was a specific set of complaints though and it was not directed at me.  There is too much promotional obscuring of views on this article and that needs remedying. There is a problem of editors with a known conflict of interest editing here which also doesn't help matters. ...remove personal attack... Wikipedia recommendations state that editors are to work collaboratively and bias and differences of opinion are to be accepted and taken into account using civil discourse. Please be civil and we can get on with collaboratively making sensible improvements to the article. Thank you AlanBarnet 08:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of biased and argumentative writing

message: Hi all. I'm looking for suggestions in the area of making criticisms more concise.  From what I see of the status of this article and from Cleanupguys it seems that adding criticism throughout the article will disrupt flow. - So it seems fairly intuitive to keep all criticisms in one area.  
*Firstly instead of having to discuss how to reduce the size of things it may be easier to just place basic views in their own particular paragraph/section.  There are some unruly sources also. The views of Sharpley for example seem to have been dispersed and presented in the wrong order. For now it may be a good idea to simply take his 87 publication quotes and put them in proper order in one place. This would go to the basic fact that NLP is scientifically unsupported. It can be placed with others (eg Druckman) who show the same result - and all those who agree in latter sources (Singer - Devilly and so on). That way we can simply state that NLP is considered unsupported by --- list of sources. 
*Then there are the key critical views:
*The view that NLP is pseudoscientific and misleading
Authors writing about this issue are: Lilienfeld (2003;2002), Beyerstein (1990), Drenth (2003, 1999), Devilly (2005), Corballis (1999). 
*The concern over NLP as an unvalidated therapy being used in psychotherapy/self development/hrm
Lilienfeld (2003;2002), Beyerstein (1990), Drenth (2003, 1999), Devilly (2005), Singer and Lalich (1996)
HRM - Von Bergen
*Ethical concerns
Perhaps this isn't an issue needing a particular section - I can't find any particular authors writing about this. 
These all need properly stating using the relevant sources. When they are presented together it should be easier to present shared views and thus use less text.
So any suggestions on who has which view? AlanBarnet 06:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing the size of criticisms - suggestions

message: Hi all. The ANI notifications seem to be constructive so I added another.  Feel free to respond. AlanBarnet 06:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Fainites. I started sorting the Sharpley 87 finding as per his own account. . I agree that the finding is not wholly critical (or a criticism). The way its presented now is fairly neutral though it can be improved. Collaboration is encouraged here. There do seem to be some critical parts of that review section though. Which ones are you interested in moving from reviews to a criticism section/paragraph? AlanBarnet 04:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi all. As a first step to restructuring - I have removed some argumentative (debate) language . The article needs to follow NPOV and all relevant views are to be presented  "in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability".  Presently the criticisms have been suppressed by bad structure. Straight reporting of facts is necessary. So instead of presenting argument - the article should have critical views seperated from straight reporting of science fact. User 58. You have mixed up the view of Sharpley and placed it in a manner which makes discussion seem like conclusion . That is a form of selective editing and is certainly non-sequitur. Could you please explain why you call my version "bloating". It is a simple report of Sharpley's article. Also could you refrain from incivility (stop calling me a long term abuser). I am Alan Barnet and I am clearly not sockpuppeting. Do not remove my posts on the talkpage also. You have no regular talkpage of your own so I have to post messages to you here. Thank you AlanBarnet 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ANI notification

message: Hi all. I rescued this information from archives. It is inspired by Woohookitty's suggestions on my talkpage.  This is only one way to organize criticisms. Your suggestions are welcome. Looking for suggestions in the area of making criticisms more concise.  From what I see of the status of this article and from Cleanupguys it seems that adding criticism throughout the article will disrupt flow. - So it seems fairly intuitive to keep all criticisms in one area.  
*Firstly instead of having to discuss how to reduce the size of things it may be easier to just place basic views in their own particular paragraph/section.  There are some unruly sources also. The views of Sharpley for example seem to have been dispersed and presented in the wrong order. For now it may be a good idea to simply take his 87 publication quotes and put them in proper order in one place. This would go to the basic fact that NLP is scientifically unsupported. It can be placed with others (eg Druckman) who show the same result - and all those who agree in latter sources (Singer - Devilly and so on). That way we can simply state that NLP is considered unsupported by --- list of sources. Then there are the key critical views:
*The view that NLP is pseudoscientific and misleading. Authors writing about this issue are: Lilienfeld (2003;2002), Beyerstein (1990), Drenth (2003, 1999), Devilly (2005), Corballis (1999). 
*The concern over NLP as an unvalidated therapy being used in psychotherapy/self development/hrm Lilienfeld (2003;2002), Beyerstein (1990), Drenth (2003, 1999), Devilly (2005), Singer and Lalich (1996)
*HRM - Von Bergen
*Ethical concerns: Perhaps this isn't an issue needing a particular section - I can't find any particular authors writing about this. These all need properly stating using the relevant sources. When they are presented together it should be easier to present shared views and thus use less text. So any suggestions on who has which view? AlanBarnet 06:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to the clear information suppression issues and in order to move forward with correctly presenting all relevant views I have added the actual criticisms to the lead section . I realize that some editors here may not like to have the main criticism presented concisely but we have to deal with this somehow. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and "verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability." as per Suppression of Information within the NPOV tutorial . It is not enough to present a minor criticism of an NLP proponent (a weak link). The criticisms of peer reviewed and other reliable sources must be presented. Collaboration is welcome. AlanBarnet 04:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Comaze. Yes I believe they need summarizing. Now we can consider how to do that.  We can talk simple steps. Consider how this is going to happen according to NPOV policies. Suggestions are welcome but I suggest (reiterate) these steps: 1 place all similar views together. 2 state the most prominent proponent of that view if any 3 summarize using the corroboration of the other sources holding those views. AlanBarnet 07:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sure Fainites. Such distinctions will help the article. Which do you think are the most obvious candidates? AlanBarnet 05:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reducing the size of criticisms - suggestions

message: ===Correction to Sharpley (1987)===
Hi Fainites. I started sorting the Sharpley 87 finding as per his own account. . I agree that the finding is not wholly critical (or a criticism). The way its presented now is fairly neutral though it can be improved. Collaboration is encouraged here. There do seem to be some critical parts of that review section though. Which ones are you interested in moving from reviews to a criticism section/paragraph? AlanBarnet 04:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed changes (AlanBarnet)

message: Hi Fainites. I started sorting the Sharpley 87 finding as per his own account. . I agree that the finding is not wholly critical (or a criticism). The way its presented now is fairly neutral though it can be improved. Collaboration is encouraged here. There do seem to be some critical parts of that review section though. Which ones are you interested in moving from reviews to a criticism section/paragraph? AlanBarnet 04:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction to Sharpley (1987)

message: Hi all. As a first step to restructuring - I have removed some argumentative (debate) language . The article needs to follow NPOV and all relevant views are to be presented  "in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability".  Presently the criticisms have been suppressed by bad structure. Straight reporting of facts is necessary. So instead of presenting argument - the article should have critical views seperated from straight reporting of science fact. User 58. You have mixed up the view of Sharpley and placed it in a manner which makes discussion seem like conclusion . That is a form of selective editing and is certainly non-sequitur. Could you please explain why you call my version "bloating". It is a simple report of Sharpley's article. Also could you refrain from incivility (stop calling me a long term abuser). I am Alan Barnet and I am clearly not sockpuppeting. Do not remove my posts on the talkpage also. You have no regular talkpage of your own so I have to post messages to you here. Thank you AlanBarnet 03:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reduce argument and distinguish statements of fact