Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

RfC request

I started a Third Opinion request, have been told that RfC is more appropriate. The question is "Whether or not NLP is a pseudo-science or a psychological method?" htom (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The tool doesn't have an option to put this into a group like Medicine or Psychology. :( If someone knows how to do that, it would help. htom (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience. I believe there are references for this somewhere in Neuro-linguistic programming and science and Neuro-linguistic programming#Criticism and controversy. For further explanation I'll refer you to this comment (from this article's failed FAC), which I agree with wholeheartedly. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  And by the way, categorizing this RFC under Language and Linguistics is not really appropriate; neuro-linguistic programming has nothing to do with linguistics other than the fact that they unfortunately share part of the name. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not especially happy with the choices given in the tool; that was closest. Linguistics used to be the study of communication through symbols, and in that old-fashioned sense there is a stronger association than the use of the letter string "linguistic". Can you add it to lists I think more appropriate, medicine or psychology or psychotherapy, please? Thank you. htom (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

References to pseudo-science are clearly given in the article. --Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't this been discussed already? What exactly is the question here? Does someone have a problem with the Pseudoscience category? Or any cited and attributed mentions of "pseudoscience" in this article in general? What's the problem? We're not having a debate amongst us whether NLP is this or that, our own opinions are irrelevant. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a small group of SPAs who would like it removed, or so qualified as to be meaningless. We have been asking them to come up with sources for months but they have failed to do so. There have been various slow edit wars trying to remove referenced material. All the sort of thing you get on articles like this. --Snowded ^TALK 16:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh deer. I requested semi-protection earlier, just for the IP(s), but no one's reacted yet. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how something should be labeled a "pseudo-science" when it does not claim to be scientific. Some (I have not looked at all, or even most) of the citations seem to be attributing the failure of new teachings several generations removed from NLP to NLP, rather than to those new teachings. Some of those new teachings do claim to be scientific, and are properly so labeled. NLP did not make that claim, and should not be tarred with the sins of its errant grandchildren.

Snowded seems to think I'm a SPA; why, I don't know. I think it's name-calling and wish s/he'd stop. It makes it hard to AGF. htom (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

(I think they were referring to the other ones, not you.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When my objections are swept up as if that's what I am, then it's easy to make that mistake. I mostly think the article here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Neuro-linguistic_programming&action=historysubmit&diff=97563191&oldid=97548346 )(the first pair compared when I asked for 2006) is far, far better, and does a much more balanced discussion of the pseudo-science flavors of some of NLP's descendants. The current article approaches being an anti-NLP screed. htom (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't argue against sources. You say that NLP does not claim to be scientific. That is your opinion, but it means nothing here (the same goes for my view that it does ). The very very simply point is that a body of reliable sources say it is. Therefore that is reflected properly in the article. No you are not an SPA, but you are about the only NLP advocate here who isn't. --Snowded ^TALK 17:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When the sources are misused, I can and have. Here, that's ignored. I am trying to be an NPOV advocate, but it appears that's not desired here, if the current article is really considered to be better than the version I linked to just above. htom (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can provide diffs to your points you say got missed or ignored and they relate to this RFC then we can address them in here. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to give an alternative viewpoint. I don't believe in NLP as a personal opinion, but as previously stated personal opinions do not matter. However the label pseudo-science implies judgement made by the author/s of the article. The scientific method does not have an outcome of "pseudo-scientific". Science is the acquisition of knowledge through gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. It maybe both that NLP has been scientifically discredited, and can be criticised for using pseudo-scientific terms - but labelling NLP as pseudoscientific applies a judgement on behalf of the reader that does not need to be made. Suggest the way forward is to remove the judgement statement, and enhancing both the techniques section and measurable evidence/critique (Tiiischiii (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC))

I wonder how much of this criticism from linguists is driven by jealousy of Grinder's success and turf wars? Wosow (1985) provided some insight: "Linguistic theorists who leave the ivory tower are eyed with suspicion and treated as tainted. Consider, for example, what is undoubtedly the greatest commercial success to have descended (in one sense, at least) from generative grammar, namely Neurolinguistic Programming. One might think that the fact that Grinder is no longer a poor boy like his former colleagues in academia would have made him a hero to them. Far from it. Obviously, linguists don't know what side their bread is buttered on. Perhaps this is a sign of the integrity of our discipline. However, the fact that we have no more respectable applications to offer in its place raises questions about our status as a science" - Wasow, T. (1985). Comment: The wizards of Ling. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3(3), 485-492. Wosow is now a professor of linguistics at Stanford.[1] --122.108.140.210 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It already seems tendentious. Criticisms from Corballis, Drenth, Stollznow and others answer this point and come decades after the Wazow comment. Since 1985 practical application of linguistics and neurolinguistics have multiplied. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

LKK, You missed the point. To date there are still no respectable applications of generative grammar. Ask any linguist, especially a Chomskyan, before answering that question. --122.108.140.210 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with 122.108.140.21 and Wasow, Professor of Linguistics at Stanford University, in the view NLP is a psychological and communication model.

I'm not going to call anyone out individually, because this decision can be made based on ideas alone. But 122.108 is right to mention turf war. The most active Editor smearing NLP in this article runs a competing seminar business that is conflated with NLP, meaning considered absolutely identical in the marketplace. (Conflated was his own word on his website, and he deleted it from his talk page when it was pointed out there, because it exposed his dishonesty about declaring "no COI.")

That Editor is very similar to HeadleyDown, who the administrators banned in 2006 when this page was cleaned up. He advocates for the same references as banned HeadleyDown. He was born near the town of HeadleyDown. His family owned a home in HeadleyDown. He is affiliated with the same University in Hong Kong as Headley Down. Yet amazingly he slipped by all these years without anyone connecting those dots, or those who connected the dots took no action on it.

Again, it's not necessary to call anyone out individually because the ideas alone make the argument successfully. One of the best selling books by NLP founders Bandler and Grinder is "Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson." That book was endorsed by Ernest Rossi, one of the leading psychoanalysts in the world. By endorsed, I mean that Rossi edited it.

The argument of pseudoscience fails completely when you consider Rossi's credentials: The American Psychotherapy Association (which publishes the peer reviewed journal "The Annals"), describes Rossi this way: "He received the Lifetime Achievement Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Field of Psychotherapy from the Erickson Foundation in 1980 and from the American Psychotherapy Association in 2003. He also received the 2004 Thomas P. Wall Award for Excellence in Teaching Clinical Hypnosis. Today he conducts training workshops sponsored by his nonprofit organization, the Ernest Lawrence Rossi Foundation for Psychosocial Genomic Research." Here is the source for that reference: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/American+Psychotherapy+Association%27s+2005+National+Conference.-a0134955718 Obviously Bandler and Grinder's book is academically credible.

Rossi was also involved in substantial neuroscientific research. Here is a list of a dozen academic studies and papers on neuroscientific subjects: http://www.ernestrossi.com/ernestrossi/Neuroscienceresearchgroup.html One of those studies about the language models described in Bandler & Grinder's book was co-authored by David Atkinson, President of Grant MacEwan University, and former president of Kwantlen Polytechnic University and two Ontario universities, Brock University in St. Catharines and Carleton University in Ottawa.

We are talking about academic heavy weights who support Bandler and Grinder. You wouldn't know that from this article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That is all entirely irrelevant. An appeal to authority doesn't prove anything about the status of the field, especially one so tenuous as you describe above. (Rossi's name does not even appear on the Google Books entry.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And the personal attacks, based on an off wiki website which seems to co-ordinate the SPAs who plague this page, are getting very very tedious. None of those accusations have survived any formal investigation its just a juvenile smear campaign which reflects badly on Encyclotadd and his many predecessors. --Snowded ^TALK 09:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate, Snowded, if you would not insinuate personal attacks against me such as SPA or meat puppet. You have provided no evidence and the attacks are baseless.

Also you are distracting from the important ideas by bringing up formal allegations against you that were made by other Editors, and your " surviving " them. That's hardly a credential and has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

If this subject is found to be a psychological model, ideas will be the solitary basis for the decision. Towards that end, note Editor 122.108.140 comments two paragraphs below in which he points out that Google scholar returns 900 "scholarly" articles that cite Bandler and Grinder's 1979 "Frogs into Princes." You wouldn't know so many academics are citing NLP founders work from reading this Wikipedia article.--Encyclotadd (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You are an SPA Encyclotadd, a simple examination of your edit history shows it; its a factual statement unlike your nonsense about HedleyDown. It is also factually true that you are the latest in a long series of SPA accounts that have taken a pro-NLP stance on these articles over the year and it is also factually true that you are repeating material here from NLP web sites relating to Wikipedia. I haven't at this stage made an accusation of meat puppetry although I am thinking about it. If I do I will make the case at ANI and notify you accordingly. Otherwise your last paragraph is, shall we say surprising unless you are unfamiliar with the way references are made in academic articles. If I wrote a hostile article about NLP I would cite Bandler and Grinder; citation is not the same thing as endorsement. Also as has been pointed out to you time and time and time again, we try and avoid primary sources when we edit Wikipedia. --Snowded ^TALK 19:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's factually inaccurate. I'm a newbie, and that's very different from an SPA. I've edited more articles on Wikipedia than most people who joined the community just a few months ago. All of my edits have been well referenced.

Snowded, I would remind you that you were not called out in the Headley Down comment above. You just jumped right out in front of it like it was a moving train, and then reacted emotionally. Sorry for touching a nerve. I promise not to make any more Headley Down comments that hit so close to "home."

Now, let's focus again on the 900 academic papers citing NLP. I will start going through them because rather than talking about academic findings in abstract terms, we would be much better off being specific.--Encyclotadd (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) You have just repeated accusations here that you have made directly elsewhere Encyclotadd, Your "I didn't call you out directly" will fool no one. You are simply trying to get around the fact you have been warned twice for making personal attacks. Not aware of any emotion in my response but if that is how you see it c'est la vie. Otherwise your resolution to start going through academic sources is a welcome one I look forward to the results. --Snowded ^TALK 08:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience Looking through the extensive list of citations, most are media reports, books, and self-published articles. I can find only few papers that appear to be from peer-reviewed journals the field, and I can find abstracts of only two of them online. And they both say the same thing.[2] [3] And unless I'm missing something, in favor of the notion in the above discussion I see a whole lot of appeals to authority a little bit of ad hominem, and really nothing else. --Quintucket (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You can have the last word on this so that we can discuss the well referenced facts about this article again. Towards that end, please comment on this statement from a peer reviewed source written just a few months ago (see APA's psychinfo): "The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained." --Encyclotadd (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What search terms did you use? What databases did you search? Psychinfo has a whole category dedicated to "Neurolinguistic programming". You can also use "Bandler+Grinder" as a search term in psychinfo for a broader result. And Google scholar returns 900 "scholarly" articles that cite Bandler and Grinder's 1979 "Frogs into Princes". --122.108.140.210 (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes Quintucket. Its not enough that you make such a sweeping statement. You are under the burden here to demonstrate how neuro-linguistic programming (a modeling technique that is explicitly stated to be not a science) can be pseudoscience. I am sure we all eagerly await your attempt. Congru (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• REAL, doesn't always work, is used by cults or cult-like organizations such as NXIVM, is potentially a very dangerous form of mind control. Not unlike hypnosis. Some are more suggestable than others and depends on many factors. Chrisrus (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The journal Counseling and Psychotherapy Research found in 2010 that, "Neuro-linguistic psychotherapy is an efficient intervention, which is on par with other well established psycho therapeutic techniques." http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14733140903225240?journalCode=rcpr20#preview

According to the peer-reviewed American Journal of Forensic Psychology, "[NLP has] the capability to enhance the listeners' ability to relate to the subject of the testimony, to maintain their attention, and to increase their interest in the material presented." http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1993-35734-001

According to the peer-reviewed The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, "One NLP technique to help individuals reflect deeply on situations and relationships, and that has yielded promising results, is called ‘Perceptual Positions’. This approach has been adapted and piloted for use in individual and group workshops to help participants access personal beliefs and values in relation to sustainability." http://ijs.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.41/prod.244

According to Australian Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, which appears in the American Psychological Association's psychinfo, "A basic NLP technique, enhanced by hypnotic language patterns, worked effectively to bring about successful outcomes." http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi?action=res_record&files=214_rdb.dat&f_count=1

Dissertation Abstracts International writes that, "The study focused on neurolinguistic programming (NLP), the model or tool utilized in gathering and reporting of data. This communication-based interviewing model was selected because its clinical approach offered a replicable model in addition to having sound theoretical principles." http://dc.library.okstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/Dissert&CISOPTR=6237&CISOBOX=1&REC=9

According to Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, "NLP's major contributions involve understanding new models of human experience." http://www.nlp.de/cgi-bin/research/nlp-rdb.cgi?action=res_record&files=219_rdb.dat&f_count=1

The journal of Academic Therapy writes that, "Anchoring, a neuro-linguistic programing technique, was successful in helping a sixth grader with learning disabilities reduce his anxiety reaction to math tasks. " http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ331480&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ331480

This was thirty minutes of research-- imagine how many supportive academic documents can be found in a week or a month.--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm indenting this because I'm adding this information out of chronological order. But I think it's important that this be understood clearly by every new Editor who reads this section.

A professor of psychology at New Dehli University expresses the following view:

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) as an effective interpersonal communication model and an alternative approach to psychotherapy is used quite frequently in corporate, health and education sectors. Practitioners of NLP provide intervention in the fields of relaxation, phobia, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), allergy as well as in peak performance training. While it seems quite fascinating to see a wide range of practitioners in the field, the trend also warrants possible misuse of the concept. The efficacy of NLP as a therapy or as a personal development program is yet to be ascertained. Till date, NLP is applied without a theory. The scientific community seems not serious, when its practitioners claim that "NLP is heavily pragmatic: if a tool works, it's included in the model, even i f there is no theory to back it up….. ", thus, discouraging a scientific inquiry. The title neurolinguistic programming implies a basis in neurology (lacks evidence), computer science, and linguistics, but marketed as a new science or new age form of psychotherapy, judged simply pseudoscientific by the skeptics. These views made scientific research in this field less appealing among researchers. A review on the current trends and practices in NLP is presented here with a direction for future research in the field.

Not how he disagree specifically with the Skeptics. This is a reliable source because it appears in the American Psychological Association's database of peer reviewed articles and journals, and this quote is recent (summer 2011).--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Encyclotadd, your use of external references is rather irresponsible. Half of the quotes you just presented you didn't provide references for, so I have nothing to say about them. Of the ones you did provide references for, some are primary research studies (Stipancic 2010, Mayers 2003, Cureen 1995, Thalgott 1986), which do not provide evidence about the scientific community's perception of NLP (which is what this RFC was supposed to be about); they only provide results about a specific sample using a specific methodology, and without looking at other studies (or even looking beyond the abstracts of the studies you cite) you won't be aware of limitations of these primary studies. Some of the papers are far too old to be of any relevance now (Thalgott 1986, Davis & Davis 1983, Davis 1984)--they don't show anything about the current perception of NLP. Appropriate references would be more recent review or meta-analysis articles. Where you did cite those, you did so irresponsibly; at the top of this section you cited the Biswal (2011) paper as if it supports the idea that NLP is a real science, but nowhere in the abstract does the author say that, and in the full text the author specifically refutes that notion (note particularly pp. 50 and on, including the sections "Review of NLP literature research" and "Lack of scientific validity", where he explains that empirical data do not support the claims of NLP and clearly states that there is no justification for calling NLP a 'science'). The Murray et al. (2002) abstract, as well, doesn't say anything about NLP's status is a science, it just apparently says that one NLP technique was useful for something (and note that this article is not a scientific article or in a science journal, it's an applied journal); I wasn't able to access the full text so I can't say more. This brings me to my next point, which is that you appear to only have read (and not even understood) the abstracts of all these studies, but not the actual text, and thus totally missed the point of what these articles are saying, particularly with the Biswal (2011) paper (which you bafflingly call "Pro-NLP Paper"). You also don't seem to understand that articles reflect the views of their authors, not the journals publishing them (and even less so the database in which you found the article), given that you are saying ridiculous things like "Dissertation Abstracts argues that....". Sorry, but the articles you've dug up don't support whatever you seem to be trying to say and they don't address the numerous references already in the article that show NLP is a pseudoscience, and I have no confidence in your ability to responsibly read and use external sources. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Rjanag, It's ironic you claim to have read the sources when it's apparent you didn't read my messages referencing them. I said (twice) those quotes were found in under thirty minutes. It was disclosed twice they were dug up in haste. You also fail in your response to consider the reliability of new sources in context of ones appearing in the article. It's true the ones brought up newly on this talk page are of varying weight-- we're even referencing dissertations. But the vast number of Skeptic Society references (debated extensively elsewhere on this talk page) are generally not peer reviewed at all. The ones that are peer reviewed are strongly opposed in other journals. (Sharpley, for example, appears without qualification in the lede. But several articles in psyhcinfo say he failed to note major problems with the studies he as reviewing.) In order for Wikipedia to claim NPOV in this article, balance and factual accuracy must be restored. I hope you will join me in calling for it.--Encyclotadd (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see why saying twice that you dug these up in haste (your words) justifies the behaviour. Also you appear to be making claims on your reading of the abstracts alone. None of them are comparative studies, many of them just argue for more research. I really can't see what you are suggesting. None of these challenge the current referenced material (unless you plan some original research), some of them might support edits to the text outside of the criticism section but you have made no proposals. --Snowded ^TALK 08:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What I was saying is that it was obvious from 30 minutes of research that there are peer reviewed perspectives not finding voice in this article. I have every intention of doing more research because this article is in need of balancing. I hope other Editors will join me in the effort.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

When you do that research I suggest you do more than skim the abstracts for what you think are favourable statements. Reading sources is generally commended to researchers, thinking about them in context a real bonus. You also need to address Rjang's points. --Snowded ^TALK 10:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears that other editors here (you know who I am referring to) have been skimming articles for less favorable statements to suit their own point of view. There needs to be a balance of different perspectives according to weight. Its not easy but can be done. --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who. If you're referring to me and the Biswal article--I did not skim that article, I read it, and it's not just a few unfavorable statements here and there. One of the article's main points is that NLP lacks scientific rigor, that is not open to debate, that's simply the fact of what the article is. I'm not going to try to argue over what an article is about with people who haven't even read it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I was saying it is real, and therefore not psudoscience. But I was also saying that I'm concerned or alarmed by its potential for use by cult-like organizations or such to mind-control people. I did not speak of it's potential for good. You have established that it seems to have real benefits for great good based on these citations. However, are there no citations that express any alarm or concern for its potential as a mind-control tool for suseptable individuals? Chrisrus (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Norcross

• "Norcross et al. (2008)[18] list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited"

The above line is an exaggeration. What is the context of this list and on what poll/study was it based? What paradigm do the authors of the study adhere to? --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Disputed text: NLP also appears on peer reviewed expert-consensus based lists of discredited interventions.[5] In research designed to identify the “quack factor” in modern mental health practice, Norcross et al. (2006) [17] list NLP as possibly or probably discredited, and in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al. (2008)[18] list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited, and Glasner-Edwards and Rawson (2010) list NLP as “certainly discredited”.[19]

This disputed text above needs to be looked at carefully. On what evidence are these claims based? What perspective are these authors writing from? What are the other views about credibility and reception of NLP in various professions, not just evidence-based clinical psychology? --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and at length. Its not clear by the way if you are a new editor or not. Would you clarify. --Snowded ^TALK 09:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What is it still doing in the article if it has been discussed at length? Can you answer the question: On what evidence are these claims based? What are the limitations of the studies? --122.x.x.x (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been discussed at length and the current wording agreed. Every six months or so it comes up again, look through the archives. Now please answer the question are you a new editor? --Snowded ^TALK 09:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the outline and purpose of that entire paragraph? Is it intended to outline the reception of NLP? If so, in what context? --122.x.x.x (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the prior discussion and critically answer the question - are you a new editor? --Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you think a new editor would be able to indent his or her comments and use an IP address range like that? I cannot see these questions answered about the intention of that paragraph. What is that paragraph intended to outline? Could someone else enlighten me? --122.x.x.x (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No I don't, so would you please tell us under what IDs you have edited before --Snowded ^TALK 11:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I really need you (or other editors here) to answer the questions about the content here. My account was created with the sole purpose of working on this topic. I can disclose my other account(s), and/or qualifications to a trusted third party if absolutely necessary but I'm not getting drawn into the dog's breakfast that is this discussion forum. Now, can you try to focus on the article content? You must admit that it needs work. Can you give your purpose for that paragraph I quoted above? --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that if you have edited on NLP subjects under another name then it is misleading to come here without declaring the accounts under which you have previously edited. You may even have been involved in the prior discussions on this issue. The patter of refusal is similar to another IP address which was clearly linked to an off site NLP web site which was generating meat puppets. We also have a few blocked sock puppets around the issues you raise. Given that history its a very reasonable question to ask before engaging in content issues with you. Especially when you are raising nothing which has not been raised and discussed before. --Snowded ^TALK 11:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you endorse the paragraph as it appears in the article currently? I'm just looking at the state of that paragraph right now. You must admit that it needs work. I'll ask again: what is the intended purpose of that paragraph? Can I assume that it is meant to outline the reception of NLP in the research literature and clinical psychology in particular? --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I refer you to the previous discussions on this subject of which I suspect that you are all too aware. Please also respond to the question, if you have edited this article before under another name please declare it, otherwise you are just the latest in a series of SPA accounts who arrive here with very similar agendas. I'm not sure if its sock puppetry, but it is disruptive behaviour and prevents progress on content issues. Your edits also follow the pattern of 122.108.140.210 who of recent months has tried to have generic conversations in the absence of specific proposals for change coupled with sources. --Snowded ^TALK 12:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You chose to shift the discussion from a specific disputed portion to a generic discussion about editing behaviour or sock-puppetry. I have already declared that this is a single purpose account for editing this article. So let's get back on track.. If it was raised in the past, it certainly was not addressed in the article as the problem text is unchanged. Can you answer the question above regarding the purpose of the paragraph I referred to. It might help to repeat this for each section in the article. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The section was discussed and the current text agreed. You consider the text to be problematic, others did not last time. So I'm sorry I refer you to the previous discussion. As to the behaviour issues these are now serious on this article. Your refusal to respond is disruptive, for all we know you are a sock puppet of a permanently banned user. --Snowded ^TALK 13:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Being anonymous is certainly disruptive to those who want to cyber bully or stalk. I'm not accusing you of that but you do need to be more careful with controversial topics. Critics and enthusiasts are attracted to these kind of fringe topics. Its hard to find balanced editors. I was very specific in the portion of text I was examining closely. Would you prefer that I suggest alternative text rather than highlight disputed text for discussion? I was really trying to find out your purpose for that paragraph seeing that you have curated this article recently. --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being anonymous, there is everything wrong with editing with multiple accounts. I think you owe it to other editors to read the prior discussions on this, If you have something new to bring up fine, but if you just want to rehash the old arguments under another name that is clearly disruptive. Oh, and I always enjoy "not" being accused of something --Snowded ^TALK 14:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello 122.x.x.x. Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the second paragraph, I think there should be a number of definitions from various perspectives clearly identifying the sources. A close paraphrase of OED definition or a close paraphrase from Bandler and Grinder would be helpful. There are other definitions that can be highlighted such as how NLP is defined by Dilts, Grinder, and Bandler in NLP volume 1: "the study of the structure of subjective experience" (as it appears in the subtitle of that book). The definition from the US National Library of Medicine night be useful, it says: "A set of models of how communication impacts and is impacted by subjective experience. Techniques are generated from these models by sequencing of various aspects of the models in order to change someone's internal representations. Neurolinguistic programming is concerned with the patterns or programming created by the interactions among the brain, language, and the body, that produce both effective and ineffective behavior."[4] That definition from OED or NLM could be paraphrased in the second paragraph. As for the final paragraph, I need to know what its purpose that paragraph before making specific suggestions. If its about the reception and credibility of NLP, we might note that "Neuro Linguistic Psychotherapy Counselling Association" is an accrediting organisation for UKCP alongside the EBP perspective from Norcross. The reader also needs to know the limitations of the Norcross polls. That top ten list is more spin that substance. --122.x.x.x (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

First, the lead should summarize the body. It is much easier to add material in the body first then modify the lead as needed. I'm not sure how a list of definitions accomplishes this. Second, what other sources do you suggest would help us understand the limitations of Norcross? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(out) Given its unreasonable obsession with unnecessary definitions, and the fact that User:Encyclotadd and 122.108.140.210 just had a discussion about wanting to force these same definitions from the same sources into the lede, I presume this IP is one of them. Better to just ignore it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well 122.108.140.210 is a pretty obvious replacement for ActionPotential (who also ran an NLP consultancy business) and the style of 122.x.x.x is very similar - including the non-denial language. 122.108.140.210 is also linked to at least one indefed meat puppet through an apology on his talk page just before the banning. Its all there for a sockpuppet/meat puppet report but the general pattern over the last year or so has been to push and push, then just when everyone else is getting frustrated and ready to file the formal report, to back off for a few months, then come back again with exactly the same arguments usually supported by one or two newly created SPAs who take a more extreme position. Evidence of off wiki co-ordination is circumstantial, but the accusations against other editors are a common feature of all and can be found on a couple of external web sites. So its a pattern and it may be time for a formal report to ANI if the disruption continues. --Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A formal report to the ANI is appropriate whether the disruption continues or not. As an uninvolved editor, I have been somewhat surprised at how long this has been allowed to continue. ISTB351 (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I've been assembling the evidence over the last year or so. I agree its probably time, but I don't have it until next week. I keep hoping a neutral admin or experienced editor will take it up and track through - I am demonised on a number of the external NLP sites.--Snowded ^TALK 06:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And your response to your demonisation on external NLP sites appears to be to demonize NLP here? Do you really think you can manage to edit with a NPOV after such treatment? htom (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded certainly seems to be trying to do so; demonization by NLP partisans is hardly evidentiary regarding one's ability to follow WP:NPOV. The truth is that there is a pattern of disruption happening at this article that needs to be addressed officially, as the usual methods of discussion are being subverted by sockpuppetry and external canvassing. siafu (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting possible tactic for you there htom. You set up a web site and launch attacks on any editor who disagrees with you. You then say that as a result of that disagreement they can't edit the article. That aside if you have an diffs for me editing in "demonisations" as opposed to material supported by reliable sources please provide them. From the other comments here I think it is probably time to make the formal report. If no one else picks it up I will do in sometime late next week assuming work does not overtake me --Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You're the one who claimed to have been demonized. Care to point at the website you claim I've put up, please? htom (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I keep forgetting that some people/cultures don't understand irony. Please note the use of "possible", its the second word in the post. --Snowded ^TALK 05:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Htom. Please take time to read discussions carefully. The tactic in general for demonising can be seen here as one example: [5]. The pattern is keeping repeating so its certainly time for formal report. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just ignore it mate. Its not nice that people here are accusing each other of off-site canvassing or sockpuppeting. NPOV and reliable sources will prevail in the long term. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Implications or expectations of bad faith don't seem to me to be especially ironic, Snowded. Perhaps that is something you expected? htom (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's not let the discussion get disrupted again. Can you return to collaborating on the article? If that means getting third party comment or using administrator noticeboard then great. More experienced eye balls the better. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

TBH, discussion of this article should come to a halt, until the sock/meat puppetry situation is taken care of. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested, 122.x.x.x has decided to make an ANI report about the bad atmosphere his 4th incarnation is receiving on this talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 23:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Witkowski

There are several references to Witkowski in this article...

• Witkowski (2010) states that NLP uses impressive sounding yet questionable expressions such as; pragmagraphics, surface structure, deep structure, accessing cues, non-accessing movement etc.
• Witkowski (2010) writes that "NLP represents pseudoscientific rubbish, which should be mothballed forever."
• Witkowski (2010) also states that at the neuronal level NLP provides no explanation at all and has nothing in common with academic linguistics or programming.
• According to Witkowski (2010), NLP also appears on “the list of discredited therapies” published in the journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.

These are quite extreme statements which are inconsistent with other papers. I'd first think we should remove the line "According to Witkowski (2010), NLP also appears on “the list of discredited therapies” published in the journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice." and just cite the Norcross poll directly. At the moment it is misleading. Witkowski cites a delphi poll carried out by Norcross et al in 2006. Adding "according to Witkowski..." adds nothing to the article. He is not notable and it is not published in a high ranking journal. Witkowski adds nothing to the article on this point. So just cite Norcross directly, briefly describe the method, conclusions and any limitations. --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember that "According to W" was added in by one of your previous identities but I could be wrong. Citing Norcross direct without the "according to .." is fine. However I don't see any need to "describe the method/limitations" unless there is a source which does that and can be referenced. I also see you have returned to the ranking arguments you advocated before. You might want to remind yourself of the discussion then. There is no question that the journal referenced is a reliable source, and remember NLP is fringe at best and that will be reflected in where comparative studies or evaluations are published. --Snowded ^TALK 08:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you need to mention Witskowski at all. Just let Nocross poll speak for itself. I'll make the edit and see what you think. --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No objection to removing "According to W", every objection to your repeating past attempts to qualify the research findings. So for anything more than that simple removal please discuss here first. I see you are now returning to all the same subjects and sources that you went through in your previous ID. Repeating patterns ... --Snowded ^TALK 08:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Witkowski statement was added to satisfy a repeated request from other editors for a view on what the Norcross research can be called. Witkowski calls it a list of discredited treatments. Considering the history and the explanation value I think it should stay. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There must be something lost in translation here. I am proposing that we remove the Witkowski comment about Norcross' 2006 poll and just describe the method, results and conclusions with any limitations if relevant as identified by the authors. Its a two stage poll using the delphi methodology. In the first stage NLP scored X and in the second stage it scored Y. blah blah... You get the idea. Would that sort of thing be acceptable to you two? --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Witkowski is a reliable source for the statement. It should stay. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Witkowski is actually a VERY poor reference. Again the language is poor with a bad translation that may have lost a lot in the change. There should be a MUCH more serious effort going on in this article to deal with dreadful badly written sources that misquote and plagiarize research. Congru (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion, if you think its not a reliable source then raise that at the appropriate notice board. You might want to moderate your language a bit if you do so, its pretty poor but it may I suppose be badly translated. --Snowded ^TALK 12:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nocross 2008?

Text in question: "in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al. (2008)[19] list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited"

I think the current reference to Nocross 2008 is wrong. What does the source actually say? What study was it based on? It currently cites "Norcross, John C. , Thomas P. Hogan, Gerald P. Koocher (2008) Clinician's Guide to Evidence-based Practices. Oxford University Press, USA ISBN 978-0-19-533532-3 (Page 198)" but I could not find any reference to NLP in that book. Perhaps the reference was meant to be:

• Was the source meant to be: Fala, N. C., Norcross, J. C., Koocher, G. P., & Wexler, H. K. (2008, August). What doesn’t work? Discredited treatments in the addictions. Poster presented at the 116th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA. --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is in Clinicians Guide..(2008). That is a reliable source. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Good call, LKK, on it being in the Clinician's Guide. You're right. 122, you're right that the reference appears incorrectly. Norcross does not state that NLP was discredited. The list it appears in has a different title, and shows NLP to be more successful than other main stream methods such as certain kinds of Fruedian and Jungian analysis. How do we handle such an incorrectly expressed reference in this article?--Encyclotadd (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly does it say in the "Clinician's Guide" and what is the evidence? Can you give a quote and page numbers? --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your request has been asked before: [6], and answered before [7]. Your activities here appear to be disruptive. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a "Neurolinguistic programming for drug and alcohol dependence" under the title "Top 10 Discredited Substance Abuse Treatments" (p.198). There are two studies cited at the end of the table: one was "Norcross, Koocher, & Garafalo (2006). the other was an unpublished study by Norcross, Koocher, Fala, & Wexler, (2007). The 2007 paper has since been published as Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., Fala, N.C. and Wexler, H. W. (2010) "What Does Not Work? Expert Consensus on Discredited Treatments in the Addictions, Journal of Addiction Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 3. pages 174-180. So discard your "Clinician's Guide" and go with the one published in Journal of Addiction Medicine. --122.x.x.x (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

we went through all of this with you before and removed the compRiaon to others on the list such as dolphin therapy. You are raising no new evidence over the last time you raised the issue, just doi g the same thing under your new ID. That is highly disruptive behaviour --Snowded ^TALK 14:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I really think we should get a third party opinion on this because I don't think you checked the sources before making your revert. You claim that there is no new evidence but that is not correct because I have provided new evidence: Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., Fala, N.C. and Wexler, H. W. (2010) "What Does Not Work? Expert Consensus on Discredited Treatments in the Addictions, Journal of Addiction Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 3. pages 174-180. I have also checked the sources and found that the "top ten" list that you cite was based on two polls run between 2004 and 2006: One study focused on Mental and behavioural disorders: Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., & Garafalo, A. (2006). Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37. 515-522. The second study was not published in a peer-reviewed journal until 2010: Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., Fala, N.C. and Wexler, H. W. (2010) "What Does Not Work? Expert Consensus on Discredited Treatments in the Addictions, Journal of Addiction Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 3. pages 174-180. Please address the actual evidence. --122.x.x.x (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No editor is preventing you from raising the evidence (again). It is the fact that you are unilaterally adding material to the article while no consensus has been reached here that is the problem. That is what is being labeled disruptive. ISTB351 (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And you are edit warring again, just like last time. Also you are (again) presenting your interpretation of the material, that is original research and/or synthesis. --Snowded ^TALK 22:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I offer no interpretation of the sources. What do you mean by that? It is just a statement of fact. There are two studies by Norcross that included NLP. Can you accept that basic fact? If not, I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You started this discussion with this "Text in question: "in papers reviewing discredited interventions for substance and alcohol abuse, Norcross et al. (2008)[19] list NLP in the “top ten” most discredited" I think the current reference to Nocross 2008 is wrong. What does the source actually say? What study was it based on?". You were questioning the source by asking what was it based on, that is not what we do at WP, see WP:OR. Furthermore, the reference to Norcross et al (2008) is correct, and can be verified here at Table 7.2, on p 198. The source is reliable and verifiable. I will assume that your claim that you "could not find any reference to NLP in that book" was made in good faith, but if you continue with this line others may conclude that you are hoaxing. I will close this discussion in consequence. ISTB351 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I was able to get that book out and verified the page numbers. If we do not ignore the fact that the link you posted is copyright infringement, we can say it is easily verifiable. I'm not denying that NLP appear on the second list concerning alcohol and drug abuse. On my original copy, if you look at p.199 of Norcross et al (2008) it says "From Norcross, Koocher, & Garafalo (2006). Norcross, Koocher, Fala, & Wexler, (2007)." The first one is Norcross, Koocher, & Garafalo (2006) which is: Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., & Garafalo, A. (2006). Discredited psychological treatments and tests: A Delphi poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37. 515-522. and the second one was an unpublished study that was finally published in 2010 as I stated above. I will take you word for it that this is also in the plagiarized version. What I am saying is that we should cite the studies directly. To my best of my knowledge, my position is in line with wikipedia policy in terms of reliable sources and verifiability as both studies have a DOI and can easily be found at any university library. --122.x.x.x (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes good point. In fact we should be able to cite ALL sources, not just the ones that suit the pseudoskeptics. Congru (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

All sources? I don't understand your point. The authors are essentially the same, just the ones I cited had better weight because they were published in good journals. --122.x.x.x (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I am talking on a slightly broader point. I mean several of the cites here [8] should be allowed into the article. Many of them are positive and from good sources. Congru (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The top ten claim is now cited to Norcross et al. (2010), although it makes no difference to the substantive material in the article. I will close the discussion. ISTB351 (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't close the discussion yet. We still need to discuss the change in wording. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed change: Polls by Norcross et al (2006; 2010) sought to establish expert-consensus concerning discredited psychological interventions ranked NLP between possibly or probably discredited for the treatment of mental and behavioural disorders and certainly discredited for substance and alcohol abuse.

--122.x.x.x (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You could then also mention the lists work in the evidence based practice clinical manuals because they are also notable. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed edit attempts to qualify research findings with language such as "Polls that sought to establish". We do not question research findings here, we only report them. Your language falls foul of WP:Weasel in any case. There is no reason why the top ten claim should be removed. NLP is ranked seventh with a mean of 4.24 on p 177 of Norcross et al. (2010). If absolutely necessary, Norcross et al. (2006) can be cited in support. I see no compelling reason why the edit should be made, and you have given none. Let's see if any other editors take a different view. ISTB351 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Requests that have already been satisfied [9]: User talk page accusations [10][11]. It's the same repeat pattern of disruption that is ongoing. There is no reason for the proposed edit to be made. There is also less reason to spend effort on trying to satisfy disruptive requests. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

ISTB351: I think you are misguided on that point. Try this wording: "Polls by Nocross et al (2006, 2010) sought to establish expert-consensus...". This wording is fine according to the WP:Weasel. The guideline gives and example: 'It is, of course, acceptable to introduce some fact or opinion and attribute it in an inline citation. e.g. "Research by Wong et al, 1996, has shown that rabies can be cured by acupuncture".' --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"has shown" per your example is not the same as "sought to establish". Sorry you keep trying to modify this text to imply that there is something wrong with the research. If you have a reliable source which says that then we will need to balance over the range of sources. Without such a source your opinion does not count (not would anyone else's). I think we can close this now --Snowded ^TALK 19:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a weasel word. These are the actual words used by the authors of the study in their abstract "In the context of intense interest in evidence-based practice (EBP), the authors sought to establish consensus on discredited psychological treatments and assessments using Delphi methodology." --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is at the start of the paper, they then went on to do it which is what we report. --Snowded ^TALK 06:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not at the start of the paper. The abstract is normally written after the results are in and the paper is completed. --122.x.x.x (talk) 07:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough with a fair amount of my papers to my name I know that. The abstract summarises the process they went through. This is a real waste of time, in your last incarnation (I will find the reference next week) you wasted a huge amount of editors time on exactly the same references. Please stop. --Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that we just need to report the conclusions without providing any indication of the aim, method or results? I think we need to give just enough detail so that the reader knows what the results mean. I'll get some advice from some more experienced Wikipedian and report back. --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Previously discussed, it is not legitimate to return to a resolved issue just by changing your name --Snowded ^TALK 13:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I made a change that tried to take into account your objections [12] --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism by Witkowski

Just looking into the wording "sought" to see if it was used widely.... Someone should have run Witkowski's paper through turn-it-in before submission. This must be embarressing for the integrity of the journal because Witkowski also plagiarized one of Heaps papers by copying and pasting large chunks without using quotes and page numbers.

Compare this: "Norcross, Koocher and Garofalo (2006) sought to establish consensus on discredited psychological treatments and assessments using Delphi methodology. A panel of 101 experts participated in a 2-stage survey, reporting familiarity with 59 treatments and 30 assessment techniques and rating these on a continuum from not at all discredited (1) to certainly discredited (5)."(p.21)[13]

with this from Norcross (2006) abstract: "In the context of intense interest in evidence-based practice (EBP), the authors sought to establish consensus on discredited psychological treatments and assessments using Delphi methodology. A panel of 101 experts participated in a 2-stage survey, reporting familiarity with 59 treatments and 30 assessment techniques and rating these on a continuum from not at all discredited to certainly discredited."doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515

Snowded said that the reliability of Witkowsi was not a question. Think again. You cannot have it both ways. Can you trust a journal that does not even use turn-it-in to check for plagiarism? I ran it through and it had a huge plagiarism count - copy and pasting text from web sites and other papers rather than quoting, paraphrasing or synthesizing. --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Raise it with the journal, its not our place to do this sort of investigative work --Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If we ignore the blatant plagiarism, we can see that both the author and a third party (Witkowsjki) use the term sought to describe their attempts at ascertaining consensus. The authors warn us in the article that any results need to be taken "carefully and humbly". In this context "sought" is appropriate and is not a weasel term. --122.x.x.x (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are making an accusation of plagiarism and that is your affair, but I caution you against doing it in a public forum. If you have concerns raise them with the author or the journal concerned. Other than that there is no need to use "sought" the conclusions should be taken carefully and humbly, but they are still conclusions. --Snowded ^TALK 10:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Did they make any conclusions specific NLP? --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User122xxx. You have already posted a link to the article [14]. Please stop your disruptive time wasting behaviour. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have the full text here. But I want your scientific opinion on what the specific conclusions were made regarding NLP in this paper: Norcross et al., 2006. I can see it there in the results but cannot see it mentioned in the conclusions. Snowded said we need to report conclusions and is the reason I asked for clarification. --122.x.x.x (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive nonsense. Editor opinion is irrelevant in this the matter. Witkowski reports on Norcross et al 2006. This has been covered before under one of your previous non-denied incarnations. You already know this. You appear to be persistently wasting editor effort deliberately in this matter. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop trying to divert the discussion into accusations of sock-puppetry - I'm not failing to deny, I'm just not taking your bait. I'm not interested in Witkowski really. As far as I can tell, the author has no credibility as a scientist. In contrast, Norcross is a notable professor. I'm interested in what you, as a scientist, understand to be the conclusion made by Norcross et al. 2006 specific to NLP. We need to just establish some basic facts here. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not the opinions of editors, you have been told this before as LKK says. --Snowded ^TALK 13:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for an opinion. I'm asking for the facts. --122.x.x.x (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That may be your opinion --Snowded ^TALK 21:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from that paper showing the conclusion specific to NLP you speak of. That way we can be sure that it is not just my opinion or yours. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It's laughable that a non-peer reviewed Polish journal with probably plagiarized (but clearly duplicate) is being defended here. Highly dubious is an understatement.--Encyclotadd (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

article for deletion New code of NLP

Just a note to let you know that the article titled New code of NLP has been proposed for deletion. The new code is described in by Grinder in Turtles all the way down and Whispering in the Wind. For it to be considered notable enough for its own article it would need to be discussed in reliable third party sources even if it was criticised in third party reliable sources that would be enough. I did a quick search in google scholar and it did not come up with many hits. There is a youtube video by John Grinder here[15] with 20,000 views but that alone is not good enough. There are 23 citations to Whispering in the wind[16][17][18] and around 35 references to Grinder (1987) Turtles all the way down: Prerequisites to personal genius.[19][20][21]. What is the requirement for a book to have its own article? Turtles is listed in Library of Congress[22] and worldcat[23]. It is essentially a self-publication but that does not mean non-notability. So does the book mean this criteria for notability: "the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3]"Wikipedia:Notability_(books) So if you want to have an article about the book you would need to establish that some of these works that discuss it are non-trivial:[24][25][26] --122.x.x.x (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

RS Notice Board

A request relating to this article has been made at the RS notice board by 122.x.x.x The link here. 122, its normal practice to notify people of a reference to any discussion board. I assume this was an oversight on your part. Its also normal for the reference to be in the context of a proposed edit. --Snowded ^TALK 02:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very dissapointed tbh.

Hello, I am enemesis I have studied NLP and I am very dissapointed at the direction of this article at the moment. I was involved in editting this article about 6 to 7 years ago when we were trying to put together an educational piece. there was one user who sought to demonise the NLP article and had infact used aliases to give more credibility to his plea and have his way. he was subsequently caught and banned from the article. I was happy with it about a year ago when it was educational and there was a small section questioning the validity of NLP, this would be fair, right now the article is tatterred with personal opinion. I feel the article is tainted with personal opinion and should be re written. as it stands it says absolutely nothing of value. I feel if your objective is to be manipulative in the context of the article then you have no business here, your intentions will be considerred impure to me. I have no wish to get involved right now , however if this matter is not corrected I will fight for a fair article by any means necessary.

Hello and greetings to all who would like a decent article on the mountain of knowledge that is Wikipedia :D.

enemesis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemesis (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please declare which user account you edited under "about 6 to 7 years ago". Otherwise, you may be open to accusations of sock puppetry as yet another spa involved with this page. Unless, you have any specific changes which you would like to make to the article, rather than general complaints about it, this thread is liable to be closed per WP:NOTAFORUM. ISTB351 (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

JuzzyFett. I am pretty sure was my name and yes sock puppetry was the term used for the offender, he was banned from editting the article. Specific changes would be to make an educational article that articulates what NLP is, Not what other people have said about it. that would be a completely different thread or a smaller piece of the puzzle imo and not of worthy note for the main attraction. in other words this article closes options for the reader as far as true learning is concerned. Upon seeing the article in such dissaray I feel I must begin another account. accuse me of sock puppetry if you like. this is the truth and you will find no such evidence to support it. also the member involved with the page many years ago also claimed NLP to have lost it's timeliness, such comparisons are completely bizzarre to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enemesis (talk • contribs) 03:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask a question? Is this a thesis or an article? Is it historically correct? is it filled with opinionated third party propaganda that leads to a judgement of the subject matter? Does the text represent the subject it describes? What is the true genesis of NLP? Are the other documents really by the way side and have little relevance to the subject as a whole whilst also having their corner in the article? Who are the people involved and what is their importance? wow thats a few questions really but you get it. again is this a thesis or an article? ````