Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Archive 2

message: Is it just me or did the layout of the main article just take a turn for the worse? GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: With the greatest respect to all concerned, this entire discussion is based on a very basic misunderstanding.  Once we recognise the misunderstanding the entire problem is resolved.
Monstrous claim?  See for yourself:
The disputed versions of the entry for Neuro-linguistic Programming, and virtually all of this discussion, are about TECHNIQUES (eye accessing cues, fast phobia cure, etc., etc.) and their VALIDITY and their APPLICATION.
BUT
THAT is NOT NLP.
NLP is not a collective noun, as so many contributors to this discussion seem to think.
NLP, as explicitly defined by John Grinder, and implicitly defined in Richard Bandler's epigram:
"NLP is an attitude and a methodology that leaves behind a trail of techniques."
Is nothing more than the "modeling" of a person who has a particular skill or ability in such a way that the essential elements of that skill or ability can be identified and used by the modeler and/or and taught to others.  These "elements" may include any or all of the following:
Vocal characteristics
Beliefs
Values
Behaviours
Language patterns
and so on.
The "attitude" that Bandler spoke of is the view or belief that this modeling and teaching process is possible.
That's IT.
Whilst other people might chose slightly different words and phrases, THAT is the whole basic definition of NLP.
Everything else is, as Bandler indicated, techniques which are to varying degrees useful tools for use in the modeling process.  Not one single technique is an indispensable element of NLP itself.  Which is why the contents of the "toolbox" are regularly subject to modification.
Virtually all of this discussion actually ignores NLP and concentrates instead on the techniques, what people say about them, and how people use them.
So, whilst any particular technique may or may not be valid, scientifically verifiable, ethically acceptable, etc., that has no bearing on Neuro-Linguistic Programming itself.  Nor do the various theories of what works, how it works, or how people apply the various techniques.
Likewise the question of a relationship between NLP and Scientology is a red herring, because Scientology has nothing to do with MODELING.  Nor does est, or the Landmark Forum.
The question of "pseudo science" is a red herring, because no one is claiming that NLP modeling is an exact science.
Tony Robbins, Michael Hall, etc. are red herrings, because each has his or her own set of techniques, which they apply according to their own agenda.  But Tony Robbins et al, their techniques, their style of presentation, nor practices such as fire walking, don't have anything to do with NLP itself. [ Unless you happen to be modeling a fire walker, of course ;-) ]
Likewise claims like "NLP can be used for indoctrination" are red herrings.
Taking that specific claim, NLP can certainly be used to MODEL indoctrination techniques, and various techniques which have featured at one time or another in the NLP "toolbox" might be used for indoctrination.  BUT the techniques are not NLP, and NLP itself cannot be used for indoctrination.
 
If I may use a simile, the techniques associated with NLP are like the proverbial icing: not only are they ON the cake (rather than IN it), but all too often they OBSCURE the actual cake from view. 
In fact, if every single technique currently associated with NLP in the minds of those both inside and outside the NLP community could be invalidated, that STILL would NOT invalidate NLP.
The ONLY way that NLP itself could be invalidated is if someone could invalidate one or more of these propositions:
1.  The elements that enable one person to be more skilled at a given task than their peers can be modeled
2.  Having been modeled, the elements that enable one person to be more skilled at a given task than their peers can be taught to others
3.  Having been taught the elements that enable one person to be more skilled at a given task than their peers, a person who has the *necessary pre-requisites, and who is willing to adopt those elements in their entirety into their own beliefs, values, behaviour, etc., will be able to replicate the skill or ability of the original exemplar.
* "necessary pre-requites" - it is unrealistic to suppose that a person who is severely overweight will be able to replicate the performance of, say, an Olympic-standard hurdler, no matter how detailed and accurate a model of the hurdler's skill and ability they may have.
So, simply cut out everything that is about the techniques and see what you have left.  Not a lot!
This is not a suggestion to "ignore the difficult bits," BTW.
Individual techniques could each be assigned its own entry - allowing far more focused discussions of each topic.
(Sorry about the repeated posting, but my broadband link is shaky and could fall over at any moment.)
No problem.  I understand you wish to promote NLP. Unfortunately for you, that is not how Wikipedia works.  The goal here is to represent NLP in the way that reflects people's views in a neutral and balanced way according to NPOV.  OK, NLP is a fringe subject, so proponents are going to be in the minority already.  It also tends to cloud people's perception and cause a lot of evangelical and zealous behaviour, hence the continued hype.  So we have scientific views that take NLP hypotheses (yes they are hypotheses for what works eg, you do this, and that happens, you model in this way, and such and such goes on etc), and these hypotheses are tested with certain results.  Now, you are certainly taking the pseudoscientific view if you talk of your red herrings.  Some people say that NLP is a therapy, and some say it is Tony Robbins walking on BBQs, and some say it is a social phenomenon that is often used to fool people into joining cults and cult followings of all kinds.  Basically, you argument leads to the result that NLP is "an attitude that leaves a trail" or "the difference that makes the difference" or the "unfair advantage in selling".  Basically, you are saying that NLP is just a sales line. How can that be neutral or encyclopedic?JPLogan 08:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "L/R brain stuff" is not promoted by Bandler, Grinder or Dilts. Please check your facts. --Comaze 23:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Gordian Knot

message: Hello Andy.  I understand what you are saying, but this is an encyclopedia.  The NPOV policy encourages all views within a certain framework.  It is good that you admit to being pro-NLP.  Fringe views also have a chance to be heard on Wikipedia.  But if you simply want to behave like all the other pro-nlpers and delete facts regardless of validity, then you are in the wrong place. I am interested in keeping this article as harmonious as I can.  There are also some very intolerant elements on wikipedia who have no time at all for spamming, hype or self promotion.  Considering the relatively neutral state of the article, and the wholly negative press that some have decided to leave out, it is not advisable to provoke them.Regards203.186.238.231 15:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: And Now - the Threats

message: :#overly promotional (which sections?)
:#does not adhere to NPOV
:#Questions source of Occam's Razor (NLP's metholodological reductionism)
:#Questions use of images (eg, Tesla etc).  
:#JPL says, "Your history section looks like a cover up." (how specially is it a cover up?)
:#Says references to intellectual antecedants of NLP includeing turing machines, cybernetics, epistemology, and :Farrelly are spurious or will "give NLP a bad press".
:#Says that Bateson, Grinder & Bandler's intolerance of fuzzy kinds of energy does not relate to NLP 
:#says, "we don't know and are trying to find out" is a nonsensical pseudo argument
:#Says the editors have done very little work on researching to an encyclopedic standard
:#Says NLP not being initially concerned with the cause of a pattern is pseudoscientific.
:#JPL also criticises, 
::#"There is no central control of NLP"
::#"people understand nlp from various perspectives etc."  
::#"practitioners often explicitly formulate these as presup..etc".  
::#phrases such as, "but it is important to note that" etc.  
:--Comaze 07:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comaze.  I don't think people are interested in excuses.  Some people are kind enough to indicate the parts of your arguments are wrong.  I doubt if you will get much done by arguing.CarlOxford 09:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  CarlOxford, First, let's establish what is NOT in dispute, then we can argue about the sections in dispute.  --211.30.48.164 10:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok I've summarised JPL's objections, let's cleanup these issue so we can get moving (my comments are in brackets)

message: I've merged the buzzwords section from Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp) --Comaze 22:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have said this was a contested section.  I haven't looked though... GregA 06:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buzzwords

message: Taken from alternative page (and I merged this yesterday with this page's Modeling block GregA
:"What do consistently high-performing “geniuses” do differently to “average” performers?" (Grinder, 2003).
NLP modeling is considered by some practitioners to be at the heart of NLP. NLP aims to discover how experts or superior performers excel in a given niche, initially through observation and imitation and only when the skills can be replicated by the modeler explicitly coding "the difference that makes the difference", so that the difference can be taught to others (Bandler & Grinder, 1975). Modeling can be thought of as the process of discovering relevant distinctions within these experiential components, as well as relevant sequencing of these components necessary to achieve a specific result.
Grinder specifically teaches implicit NLP modeling, which involves attempting to enter a filter free state, with no preconceptions of how the model does what they do, from which to model. Grinder describes the modelling process as "an accelerated learning approach for modeling human excellence".
There are limitations to what can and can not be successfully modelled. There are also several methods of modeling practicised within NLP that differ from Grinder's approach (he does not consider these NLP modeling). For instance, some practitioners have attempted modeling someone through their biographies and other descriptions - Robert Dilts published models of Jesus of Nazareth's, Sherlock Holmes's, Albert Einstein's and Nikola Tesla’s internal strategies. With no access to the model (nor quality video), it is almost impossible to test whether the model is accurate, and within the field of NLP the modeling of deceased experts is criticized.
Note that the term "model" in Psychological Models is unrelated to NLP modeling.
 With modeling the crux/core of NLP, we possibly need more than the 2 existing paragraphsGregA
What do you think? GregA 00:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NLP Modeling

message: Grinder, Bostic and Malloy have published papers based on Grinder-Bateson epistemology (NLP epistemology). This is relevant in establishing NLP as an epistemology (combining the science and philosophy)....
::: Grinder, Bostic and Malloy's paper titled "Steps to an ecology of emergence" has been accepted for publication in "Cybernetics & Human Knowing". Bateson's epistemology has heavily influenced NLP epistemology. Malloy who published in  press: Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, "Mapping Knowledge to Boolean Dynamic Systems in Bateson's Epistemology " acknowledges Grinder & Bostic for their work on Bateson-Grinder epistemology which forms part of their overarching framework. --Comaze 03:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grinder, Bostic, Malloy (2001,2003)

message: ::* Singer's book "crazy therapies" is hardly a scientific journal (In fact, I probably should not have placed most of the studies you cite under a heading of "peer-reviewed"... that's terribly misleading.)
Singer is a reputable source, and also connects with the cult aspects of NLP.  We can keep the title something other than peer-reviewed.  Perhaps scholarly would be more accurate.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Books are respected far more than magazine articles. But this is a book with a specific agenda - the title itself marks that GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not peer reviewed, it doesn't answer to psychologists - only to publishers. It is marketed as "crazy therapies". Surely you realise the difference? GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Singer

message: ::*who else have you said... oh, Carroll - okay the "skeptics dictionary" is also not peer reviewed scientific journal.
Again, Carroll is a prof.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't guarantee impartiality or indepth reviewed research for every subject in the dictionary (nobody could do that). GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: When a research paper reviews findings the time and effort is huge. Carroll could not possibly do that for every one of his articles. And why would he want to. He is marketing his book as "A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions". GregA 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Carol

message: You also misrepresented the Einspruch & Forman (1985) study.  It is a single criticism of Sharpley's (1984) prior study, and Sharpley re-assessed the review in a study in 1987 with an array of extra studies afterwards and came to an even more conclusive result that "research data do not support the rather extreme claims that proponents of NLP have made as to the validity of its principles or the novelty of its procedures.  Basically, you will find that the reason Lilienfeld, Carroll, Bertelsen, Singer and all the other later researchers call NLP a pseudoscientific subject is because NLP fails to provide evidence for its claims.HeadleyDown 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Einspruch & Forman

message: There is a statement that no recent research review was conducted, however, Singer is 1997, Platt is 2001, Lilienfeld and Drenth are 2003. HeadleyDown 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Lilienfield's book "Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology" is also not a review of NLP. It's a damning book on all psychotherapies and their lack of psychological research, including psychologists themselves - and to be neutral that has to be made clear.
Well, that is your opinion.  Lilienfeld is a practicing psychotherapist and researcher.  As a scientist he gets pretty good acknowledgement here.HeadleyDown 12:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Which bit is my opinion? The book criticises the practitioner-research gap in psychology. It criticises psychotherapies too. It criticises NLP. It criticises rebirthing etc. It is a critical book designed to get people thinking and improve research across the board. It is great that this is being pushed. The book itself needs to be interpreted in light of the above though. GregA 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lilienfield

message: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a quasi-spiritual behavior-modification (or "performance psychology") technique whose crux is "modelling," or "NLP modelling" (Raso 1994). 
*Ok, now that we have the correct reference... [See Review http://atheism.about.com/library/books/full/aafprAlternativeHealthcare.htm]. Raso thinks NLP has mystical or supernatural foundations... This book is based on false assumptions that NLP is based on mystical or supernatural, so this reference doesn't hold enough weight, especially to be a reference for the opening sentence. --Comaze 06:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Raso

message: * Sinclair. J. (1992) An ABC of NLP. Publisher: ASPEN (Self-published) ISBN: 0951366017
This is a self-published book.
Statement attributed:
* The methods of NLP involve programming and reprogramming engrams(the memory trace)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&action=edit§ion=27
* NLP are explained in the literature using the neurological concepts of programming and reprogramming engrams
* Engrams give a patterned response which has been stabilised at the level of unconscious competence, and are beneficial if they involve automatic activities which are useful, but also comprise activities which are automatic and pernicious, such as addictive behaviour 
* All of these statement seem to be lifted from this sample page 
I have a copy of this book. Its actually very nicely done, especially the illustrations.  Engram is crossreferenced with more than a handfull of other entries, including subconscious, and subconscious competence.HeadleyDown 11:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a well known or common source. I think we acknowledged it a few times as the only NLP book to mention Engram, just that it's not from any of the early developers, nor a popular NLP text. GregA 13:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This brought an interesting point, the article as it currently stands highly promotional for Joseph Sinclair & Stephen Bray. Headleydown, do you have any criticism of this author? --Comaze 15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Joseph Sinclair with Stephen Bray

message: I have put in a formal request for mediation (via Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution) on this issue, so we should be hearing back from the mediators fairly soon.  best regards, --Comaze 11:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: comaze - you may be right, maybe it is the only way... but I hope with multiple sections we can get some discussion going and some input. There are several sections I've asked for comment on in the last few days with no response, so given that I've allowed time for response I believe it reasonable to make changes to the page. Please comaze (and headley) now that we're in mediation lets not do reversions on the engram stuff and use the mediator effectively. I guess what I'm saying is - for all sections, lets not make changes without discussing things here first!! GregA 12:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fair enough. Engram was removed from the Neuro-linguistic Programming(Temp) weeks ago, we gave plenty of notice and time to comment. --Comaze 23:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I still have not heard back from the mediator yet. Please see, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation for more information. --211.30.48.164 00:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Mediation (Engram)

message: I'd like to suggest we remove any arguments that NLP is good because of something else not NLP. Same goes for bad. Let us talk about what NLP is itself. As a related example, we should not say
* Headley and Comaze, like the believers of the guinea plateau, eat regularly.
Lets be specific in this case rather than imply an association.GregA 08:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument by association

message: *We already have all the resources we need to succeed. It is not argued that this is true, only that it is useful to believe 'as if' it is true when attempting a change.
What does "believe 'as if' it is true" mean? "act as if" is commonly used. GregA
Note that at no time is their a requirement to believe these statements.... try them on as perceptual filters. Find out if they are useful when doing NLP... use them as if they were true. (Collingwood 2003)
The problem is a presupposition is a background belief.  Even the NLP books talk about those beliefs, and also, people learning presuppositions consider them beliefs.  The word belief is all over the literature in relation to presups.JPLogan 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Greg, JPLogan, That's fine. A presupposition is a type of belief. More specifically presuppositions is a type quanitifier from linguistics (Transformation Grammar). A quanitifer can also be considered a filter of experience, as Greg points out. --Comaze 03:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "We already have all the resources we need"

message: Eye accessing cues, meta-model, etc can clearly be called early patterns (do you agree?) 
Are they accurately also called Basic Tenets of NLP?
GregA 07:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Does NLP have Basic Tenets and is PRS part of it, are they "early patterns"

message: Hello Comaze.  I remember someone said something about merging.  Now, I don't believe that is ever going to happen with you deleting facts as you have always done.HeadleyDown 04:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite simple. Since you (HeadleyDown, JPLogan, ...) added the false engram information, I was asking you HeadleyDown to remove the references or frame them as a minority view, that is not supported by majority of science or NLP community. --Comaze 04:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: HeadleyDown, You missed the point here. Engram concept is not support by the majority of NLP or science community.  On a side note, we need to create an archive for this discussion because it is getting too long. --Comaze 04:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerted effort towards merging?- NOT!

message: I've moved everything to pre-october archive. Let's keep this clean guys. --Comaze 11:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 400k is way too big for a discussion page. --Comaze 00:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: We could separate the discussion into topics? ie. 
#Discussion of references
#Definitions of NLP
#...
--Comaze 00:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up talk page.  

message: Comaze, stop removing large factual sections and passages.  You are making it extremely hard to improve the page.  You have proved that you cannot compromise or cooperate.  So your pathetic merging sidetrack distraction tactic has just finished.JPLogan 02:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comaze is provoking/maintaining yet another reversion war at the expense of all, and is sustaining a slur campaign against other editors

message: I've contacted User:Redwolf24 who may be able to assist us in mediation. This includes resolving the various content disputes, and other issues. He is the acting chair of the Mediation_Committee. --Comaze 13:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Request 

message: Hello, I have gotten Comaze's e-mail and I think I know who I'm gonna assign... a lad by the name of Sasquatch. So we don't clutter this page, I'd appreciate it if you filled out an RfM at RfM using the header === Dispute over Neuro-linguistic programming === and give us a good description of the dispute, and I'll have Sasquatch look over it. He's a very good mediator. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also add my version, of Summary and Dispute on the same page. --Comaze 07:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I wrote one simultaneously to Comaze, more general and shorter - I have discussed with comaze and left my one. (How much detail is required?) GregA 09:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello 

message: I've shown the existing quote from the page as bullet point, and answered beneath:
*Originally developed for use in psychotherapy
Well.. no it wasn't. NLP was developed to work out the difference that made the difference, to model. On the path to this, Bandler wanted to know what he was doing (with Gestallt) that his students weren't doing. Grinder had no interest in therapy at all as he considered it a method of getting people to conform to societies expectations. They were both interested in modeling and human communication.
*NLP has since been applied
It is useful to clarify that NLP modeling and NLP processes have both been applied.
*Empirical studies have concluded that NLP is unsupported...
Headley keeps saying this is the same thing as "studies have not supported". I don't think so. And if he thinks it's the same why does he care which way it's worded? 
*NLP emphasizes the mind-body-spirit connection.
No it doesn't. Some NLP practitioners do, it's up to them. As do some trainers.
*I added: "NLP's primary focus is on modeling, theories are secondary (they affect implicit modeling)
Is this disputed?
*The swish pattern... primarily focused on... engrams
Some people might think so. I liked Comaze's comment that the swish pattern is based on internal representations, which is undebatable.
*The NLP practioners goal is primarily to change a person's state and reprogram their beliefs and self-beliefs
Really? Where did you get this? The goal is either to model someone or help them change in a way they want. THey may use state change, belief change, etc.
*NLP practitioners claim to help clients replace false perceptions...
I wouldn't claim that's what I do (depends on the client), I would claim it's something I can do.
*some NLP patterns of persuasion within NLP seduction are designed to create negative beliefs
What's "NLP seduction"? NLP patterns aren't designed to create negative beliefs - at a pattern level they can influence beliefs, what beliefs are influenced is up to the person doing it.
*NLP has been applied to many applications outside of therapy.
"applied to many applications"? should say "applied to many fields"
"NLP has been applied outside of therapy" implies it is a therapy. Therapy is one of the fields it's applied to. LGATs may be one place (is Hall your only reference?) but if you want to pick one specific 'unethical' application, you should add a counter example (I added Christian).
*"practitioners claim it's not uncommon... (phobia 10mins)
Some practitioners claim. Not all. Also JP implies that Griffin says all 3 of the claims (including "make someone fall in love with you in 5 minutes" - but this is not clear. Does he?
*claimed that the presuppositions of Jesus have been identified using NLP modeling
You then link to a site unrelated to NLP modeling.
I changed this to "some Christian ministers have identified principles used by Jesus"... a far different claim! (and this is the link you give) You also want to write about Dilts Jesus modeling, but this is repeated 10 lines down - do you need twice?
*Jesus' modeling, 
you remove that Grinder says this is not NLP modeling. Dilts also released today a paper defining NLP modeling under Grinder's terms and calling what he's done elsewhere as "Analytical Modeling".
*Upward eye movements indicate visual....
I added that eye movements correlate with internal representations and people vary.. upward movements generally mean visual. Why don't you like this?
*NLP advocates connect this with hemispheres.... 
I combined this with the same hemisphere stuff 2 paragraphs further down. Problem?
*Unsupported research stuff...
I moved this around but kept everything. I wanted to change stuff but for now thought I'd keep peace by simply neatening it up. Read it... it's all there. I did add that Heap and Druckman acknowledged flaws in the research - which is true!
*Meta-model can be reduced to "what specifically"....
This is Grinder's current model, and should be written as such. I also separated milton model into a second paragraph. 
*The first subjects of study were claimed by Bandler and Grinder to be experts in the fields...
I changed this to "The first subjects of study were from the fields... surely that's no debate?
*Eisner: "exaggerated claims by the more professionally unqualified NLP certificated practitioner
*and:  "qualified NLP practitioners can be hired for more complex work
I changed the second to say "professionally qualified NLP certificated practitioners" and JP said that was wrong (which I thought too, but someone quoted it). So instead I switched the first to "qualified NLP practitioners"... okay? I also removed "can be hired" - is payment relevant to whether it requires external assistance?
*Neuro linguistic Psychotherapy 
added another NLPsychotherapy link.
* Coaching... in personal development fields similar to EST...
EST is not relevant to the application of Coaching.
I moved it (to not make waves) to the last paragraph.
Please tell me what of any of the above you disagree with. Headley is saying it is 
"NLP rhetoric, ... spam excuse, .... and hype from NLP". I find none of that above. GregA 11:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of reasoning for my changes

message: This information is presented in order to discourage disruptive behavior so as to increase the likelihood of NPOV policy being respected, and co-operative behavior being adhered to.  Note that none of the points in the example are personal attacks.
Beginning of example
Request the banning of Comaze on the basis of:
Repeat offence (for months) with a flagrant disregard for the NPOV, and persistently uncooperative actions.
Comaze has constantly (daily or multiple times per day for months) removed stated fact and removed good research, while significantly reducing the points of view that should be represented according to NPOV policy.  
Comaze makes extensive changes including extensive deletions of fact which are either difficult of impossible to make changes to.  Reversion is usually the only remedy for those kind of changes.
Comaze constantly and persistently removes stated fact.  Comaze continues to make extensive deletions to cited facts, and even makes repeat deletions after extra and unnecessarily appeasing citations have been provided by other editors.  Comaze also biases the article in favor of pseudoscience above science whenever possible and uses boosterist phrases and sections which over-enlarge the size of the article. 
Comaze has also made multiple accusations of vandalism even when editors make explicit compromises.  Comaze antagonistic activities encourages extremism, and during the worst periods Comaze does not sign posts on talk pages, and makes multiple surreptitious and troublesome to remedy deletions of fact.
The NLP article is in the process of being balanced further by neutral editors, but the progress is slow to stopped, to regressing, due to months of Comaze disruptive and uncooperative actions.  
In sum, Comaze:
*Persistently works to reduce the points of view of the article
*Persistently and extensively deletes cited fact and good research
*Persistently tries to encourage other editors to delete facts and narrow views.
*persistently encourages antagonism
*Persistently works uncooperatively against compromise
Suggested remedy: Permanent ban on Comaze.
Appendix:
Examples of evidence
Comaze's mass deletions
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=22374614
Comaze's mass deletions of cited facts even recently
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=25160193
Comaze's unfounded accusations of vandalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=24858976
and another
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&oldid=24858976
Encouragement for removal of cited facts:"Can someone please remove this line. It is not relevant to NLP. "although it is also supported using Wilder Pendfield's research into engrams." Also please remove all other references to engrams. --Comaze 03:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bookmain, What mass deletion? I simply revert (see the comments in the edit history) to this earlier version:   . Let's get back to improving the article. --Comaze 08:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for banning due to flagrant disregard for NPOV policy

message: Hello Faxx 19:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome Faxx